On 8/17/21 10:29 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You are missing the big picture. Because of the propaganda narrative
>> bull shit concerning masks (there is Z-E-R-O scientific evidence to
>> back up their effectiveness) against the spread of viruses, the
>> hospital would be insane not to play like they were following the
>> narrative. If they did not, can you imagine the yelling and
>> screaming from those that believe the propaganda narrative? The
>> professionals have to "play along".
>
> When you buy good masks at the hardware store, they have a rating to
> show their filtering efficacy, like N95, P100, or a HEPA rating.
> Obviously the nose+mouth masks, of any quality, do absolutely nothing
> about preventing projectile mucus or saliva from hitting your eyes,
> another entry point for infection (and why some health workers wear face
> shields although some of those still fail to include a mask).
> Disposable masks have no rating. You can use coffee filters, paper
> towels, or tissue paper with equal effectiveness.
>
> You don't wear a mask to protect yourself from others. You wear a mask
> to protect others from you. Obviously their use is only effective if
> EVERYONE is wearing a mask. The boobs wearing bandanas, hankies, or
> other cloth masks aren't protecting in either direction. Those are
> condoms with holes. It's just for show usually to get around store
> restrictions that you wear a mask. There are disposable N95 masks (the
> whole mask is disposed, not just a filter held into the mask). Those
> cost $2 apiece, or the P100 masks ($36) with replaceable filters
> $15/pr), but everyone wears the cheap 17-cent masks. Doesn't take long
> doing a lot of sanding to realize those cheap masks are worthless to
> filter out even the huge dust particles compared to the tiny 0.1 micron
> viruses.
>
> Masks are no longer required if you've had the vaccine and booster (now
> the CDC is recommending 3 shots for highly susceptible persons).

That floats around, especially since the jab does not work all that well
(break through infections). Some are saying
that the unvaccinated (it is not a vaccine) are threatening
the jab with variants. The science shows otherwise. It is the jab'ed
that the primary incubators. This would not
be the case if the jab was a real vaccine.

> How do
> you know someone not wearing a mask has been vaccinated? You don't.
> You are not a law officer, so you cannot demand they present their
> vaccination card which is also not legally required to be carried on a
> person at all times. Is vaccination 100% effective? Nope. Someone
> vaccinated can still get infected although the symptoms are attenuated
> for them, but they can still spread the disease.

"attenuated" indeed. The CDC will not release the data.
With no science to back this up, it is speculation at
the best and the worst, complete bull shit.

>
> The Covid19 virus has a size down to 0.1 micron, but viruses don't exist
> naked. They are bonded to a wrapper which makes them effectively
> larger. P100 and N95 masks are effective despite having a filter rating
> larger than the naked virus. Filters are rated by 95% capture at their
> /least/ efficient filtering size. Particles also have a Brownian motion
> (zig zag) that has the particle impact more than a single filter fiber.
> However, some have exhaust valves which means there is no filtering when
> you exhale. You filter on inhale, but others are at risk when you
> exhale. Those are used where you don't care about your exhale, and the
> viruses it may contain, into the surrounding environ. You don't care if
> the dust cloud from sanding happens to contact your cold virus. You
> should care about your exhalation that contacts other humans.

I work for a guy that was in on the development of the
N95 mask. He told me viruses go right though. The
above is bull shit.

>
> Have you seen anyone wearing a P100/N95 mask in a grocery store or mall
> (https://hw.menardc.com/main/items/media/3MCOM001/ProductLarge/2122230_7100156931_SF1.jpg),
> or even at the hardware store where you buy them? Instead you see
> everyone wearing cheap disposable masks equivalent to 3 coffee filters
> (https://hw.menardc.com/main/items/media/XHONG001/ProductLarge/2122275_P_C.jpg).
>
> The premise by the CDC was something was better than nothing.

You mean the CDC that won't release data? The one that
won't release studies on off label drugs that are cheap?

For instance, and ~25 more papers just like it:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce
the duration of illness

Ivermectin has less side effect that does Tylenol. But
NOOOOO, ivermectin is not politically correct: Trump might
has been right on something.

> Instead
> of sneezing into the air or into your hand or your sleeve, you wear a
> mask to protect others from your flying snot and spit. Coffee filters
> with elastic ear bands would work, too.
>

Hi Vanguard,

The scientific method -- randomized clinical trials -- has not shown
that masks of ANY kind do anything to stop the
spread of viruses. The only thing that stops them is
respirators (Ebola suites).

If you look at the recommendation for all the mask nonsense,
it is just opinion: ass holes in white coats standing around pulling
shit out their learned asses. They NEVER back up
what they say with science as there is no actual science to
back up their assertions. You will notice that all the
hard work you put into your letter, that you could not cite
a single proper scientific study to back your assertions.
This is clearly a propaganda narrative.

Oh, and viruses are primarily transmitted by aerosol,
not droplets. Masks do nothing for aerosol. They also
only work a few minutes on droplets. Then a hard breath
and you cluster bomb those around you. And you shred large
droplets into smaller ones that stay airborne longer.

This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
killed. Political correctness kills.

-T

In article <sfhl99$mo$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> That floats around, especially since the jab does not work all that well
> (break through infections).

there's more than one vaccine and they work well, but like everything
in this world, they're not perfect.

those who have been vaccinated will probably not get infected, but
there will be a small number of breakthrough infections which will be
milder than they otherwise would have been. that means the vaccines
*do* work.

the goal is to avoid hospitalization and death, a goal which is met.

> Some are saying
> that the unvaccinated (it is not a vaccine) are threatening
> the jab with variants.

virology 101 says they're wrong, plus all of the vaccines really are
vaccines.

> The science shows otherwise. It is the jab'ed
> that the primary incubators.

nope. the science shows the opposite.

viruses have a difficult time reproducing in a vaccinated host because
of the antibodies attacking it.

it's the *unvaccinated* where viruses can easily reproduce, spreading
new variants. again, virology 101.

> This would not
> be the case if the jab was a real vaccine.

it's not the case, because it's simply wrong, and there's more than one
vaccine, all of which are real.

>
>
> > How do
> > you know someone not wearing a mask has been vaccinated? You don't.
> > You are not a law officer, so you cannot demand they present their
> > vaccination card which is also not legally required to be carried on a
> > person at all times. Is vaccination 100% effective? Nope. Someone
> > vaccinated can still get infected although the symptoms are attenuated
> > for them, but they can still spread the disease.
>
> "attenuated" indeed. The CDC will not release the data.
> With no science to back this up, it is speculation at
> the best and the worst, complete bull shit.

the cdc is not withholding any data. that's nothing more than
fabricated baseless propaganda bullshit.

the reality is that there's a lot of actual science, medicine and real
world experience to back up the above claim.

> I work for a guy that was in on the development of the
> N95 mask. He told me viruses go right though. The
> above is bull shit.

he is incorrect.

> > The premise by the CDC was something was better than nothing.
>
> You mean the CDC that won't release data? The one that
> won't release studies on off label drugs that are cheap?

the cdc and others release data and studies. nothing is being withheld.

what you are calling cheap off label drugs simply do not work. if they
did, they would be used. simple concept.

> For instance, and ~25 more papers just like it:
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
> A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce
> the duration of illness

that doesn't say what you think it does.

the studies below found no significant benefit for ivermectin and it
could actually make it *worse*.

<https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-0634
8-5>
Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of
patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required
invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences
were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/>
Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the
use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
....
Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce
all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in
COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have
an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat
COVID-19 patients.

<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389>
Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 476
patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different
for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared
with placebo (median time to resolution of symptoms, 10 vs 12
days; hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07).

> Ivermectin has less side effect that does Tylenol.

bizarre comparison, not that it matters, since neither are effective at
treating covid.

> But
> NOOOOO, ivermectin is not politically correct: Trump might
> has been right on something.

he wasn't, at all. ivermectin is *not* an effective treatment. nor is
hydroxychloroquine. it also didn't go away by easter.

> The scientific method -- randomized clinical trials -- has not shown
> that masks of ANY kind do anything to stop the
> spread of viruses.

wrong. the evidence is overwhelming. it's also common sense.

> The only thing that stops them is
> respirators (Ebola suites).

oh yea, the infamous and luxurious ebola suites, which now offer a
complimentary respirator on every pillow.

at least ask for one with an ocean view.

> If you look at the recommendation for all the mask nonsense,
> it is just opinion: ass holes in white coats standing around pulling
> shit out their learned asses. They NEVER back up
> what they say with science as there is no actual science to
> back up their assertions.

except for all of the science that *does* back up what they say,
including the links you've provided, which you obviously did not read
nor understand.

> You will notice that all the
> hard work you put into your letter, that you could not cite
> a single proper scientific study to back your assertions.
> This is clearly a propaganda narrative.

the only propaganda is the garbage being spread by the various
anti-science lunatics and their websites and those who believe that
nonsense.

> Oh, and viruses are primarily transmitted by aerosol,
> not droplets.

both, and also via surfaces, however, that's not a major vector for
covid.

> Masks do nothing for aerosol.

yes they do.

> They also
> only work a few minutes on droplets.

nope. there is no timer. masks work as long as they're being worn.

> Then a hard breath
> and you cluster bomb those around you. And you shred large
> droplets into smaller ones that stay airborne longer.

nope.

> This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
> trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
> diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
> killed. Political correctness kills.

nope.

what kills is ignorance.

On 2021-08-17 9:02 p.m., nospam wrote:
>> This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
>> trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
>> diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
>> killed. Political correctness kills.
> nope.
>
> what kills is ignorance.

That can't be the entire story...

....because "T" is still alive.

:-)

Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2021-08-17 9:02 p.m., nospam wrote:
>>> This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
>>> trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
>>> diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
>>> killed. Political correctness kills.
>> nope.
>>
>> what kills is ignorance.
>
> That can't be the entire story...
>
> ...because "T" is still alive.
>
> :-)

Luck. Ignorance and luck.

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Masks are no longer required if you've had the vaccine and booster
>> (now the CDC is recommending 3 shots for highly susceptible
>> persons).
>
> That floats around, especially since the jab does not work all that
> well (break through infections). Some are saying that the
> unvaccinated (it is not a vaccine) are threatening the jab with
> variants. The science shows otherwise. It is the jab'ed that the
> primary incubators. This would not be the case if the jab was a real
> vaccine.

I said masks are no longer required - in general since there are still
exceptions. I did not say masks were superfluous after vaccination,
and, in fact, I mentioned that the vaccinated may have attentuated
symptoms while being carriers. Typhoid Mary never experienced the
symptoms of typhoid.

> The CDC will not release the data.

You obviously haven't looked, and are making unsubstantiated claims to
support your position.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/2/pdfs/08-1167.pdf

I didn't bother citing the rest from a simple "cdc data efficacy of
masks" Google search.

> I work for a guy that was in on the development of the N95 mask. He
> told me viruses go right though. The above is bull shit.

Talk to a college graduate that is trained in air flow engineering, like
for HVAC. A 1 micron virus doesn't travel a straight line through a 1
micron filter. No such thing as laminar airflow unless specifically
engineered to reduce turbulence, and filters are the antithesis to
laminar flow. Nor would a laminar flow through a filter impact a single
fiber in the filter, because obviously they're layered or scattered for
their fibers. "A guy said". Don't even take my word. Go do the
research yourself. Take courses in college on aerodynamics to get an
idea of airflow. My father had a master license in HVAC, and he spent
many hours designing ductwork, fans, valves, and other controls trying
to create as laminar flow as possible (least turbulence) to reduce the
work needed to move an air mass. None of the face masks are designed,
nor would they be, to produce least turbulence through the filter.

Folks keep reciting the diameter of viruses based on their naked size.
Virus immediately die (their coding spills out) without a wrapper to
encapsulate them. Even a 0.2 micron virus will likely be larger than a
1 micron filter, and Covid19 viruses range from 0.6 to 2 microns when
not naked. When naked, they die nearly immediately, and filters don't
care about the size of naked and dead viral spew.

Naked virus size is irrelevant to filter efficacy. The wrapped size is
important, but you really think a 1 micro wrapped virus is getting
through a 1 micron filter? Well, if so, enjoy walking through a mine
field taking a straight path.

>> The premise by the CDC was something was better than nothing.
>
> You mean the CDC that won't release data? The one that
> won't release studies on off label drugs that are cheap?

What? You've never been told by your mother to cover your cough with
your hand, then with your cuff, then at your sleeve's elbow, or with a
tissue or hankie? Well, why did she tell you to do that? Yeah, to
prevent your projectile snot and spit from spraying out to collide into
other humans. The CDC's recommendation was nothing more than
re-proliferating lore. You thought the old adage long before SARS-1 and
SARS-2 (named Covid-19) of controlling your ejection was somehow defined
by some arbitrary netiquette?

> The only thing that stops them is
> respirators (Ebola suites).

Um, you think there are no filters in those, huh? By count, respirators
are more used in construction than in hospitals. They have positive air
pressure to deliver filtered air to the wearer and prevent entry through
any leakage points, like by the straps, and under the chin. Every
asbestos remedial job requires respirators, not face masks. Despite
wearing disposable hazmat suits, having a showering station, wearing
respirators with positive pressure with a *filtered* air supply, and
sealing off the house off and using negative pressure to prevent blowing
out asbestos fibers into the remainder of the home, filters are highly
involved in pumping cleaned air into the respirators and filtered fan
pumping out the air in the work area. Working in fine silica (concrete
mixing, sawing, jackhammering, grinding, abrasive blasting) should
require a respirator, as when mixing mortar or sawing/cutting brick.

Respirators are just better quality face masks (by using a full face
mask that also covers the eyes, not just the nose and mouth), and use,
as I recall, positive air pressure inside the mask, but they still do
use filters. How do you think the cleaned air gets delivered inside the
full face mask? Which rating they use for a filter depends on duration
of use, and according to their resistance to oil vapor.

N-series: Not resistant to oil mist.
R-series: Oil-resistant for up to 1 work shift.
P-series: Oil-proof.

https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2020/08/17/respirators-construction/

Yeah, I know a lot of workers don't wear respirators, and just use
passive filtering, but then a lot of workers don't wear masks at all.
I've seen plenty of workers jackhammering at concrete with no filter.

Similarly, I've seen lots of employees working in build floor for
mainframes that don't wear hearing protection. They lose their upper
frequency range due to all the noise from all the fan in the computer
components, for the HVAC fans at the exhaust vents, and the whine from
the 3-phase generators supply power to the mainframes. I've also seen
plenty of shooters not wearing hearing protection at the range. I wear
both soft inserts and headset. If I have to remove the headset to
participate in a discussion, I still have the earplugs which don't
interfere with voice but handle the sharp bangs.

Show me a respirator, even for hospitals, that doesn't have a filter.
Oh, by the way, I think you're confusing respirators with ventilators.
The latter uses positive pressure to help inflate the lungs of the
patient with *filtered* air. My aunt worked at Medtronic who sells
ventilator *filters*. They only go down to 0.3 microns, so a naked
virus (highly unlikely it survives the distance between you and a
sneezer) does get filtered out, again due to non-laminar air flow
through the filter. A 0.2 micron virus isn't getting through a 0.2
micron, or even 0.1 micron P-100 filter. But they do rate them as
99.999% effective, because statistically it is possible for an outlier
to manage to wrangle through a filter without ever hitting a strand.

So, what's your solution to filtering the air you breathe? Staying at
home is not 100% safe, either. You receive postal mail, you might get
your groceries delivered that the delivery person has touched (3 hours,
or less, for Covid19 to die on paper bags), and the virus lasts longer
on hard surfaces, like plastic bags (up to a week to survive), those
canned goods that someone picked up at the store but put back on the
shelf, or touched those veggies you bought, oh, and those vinyl gloves
some folks were but don't remove them properly to avoid touching
anything on them (and which increases the chance of spreading the virus
that survives longer on them). How fast the wrapper gets broken is how
long the virus survives, and softer more absorbent materials kill them
faster, like those cloth masks, even the cheap ones (but you add
moisture from your breath, and why disposable masks really should get
disposed of).

> If you look at the recommendation for all the mask nonsense, it is
> just opinion: ass holes in white coats standing around pulling shit
> out their learned asses. They NEVER back up what they say with
> science as there is no actual science to back up their assertions.
> You will notice that all the hard work you put into your letter, that
> you could not cite a single proper scientific study to back your
> assertions. This is clearly a propaganda narrative.

Yep, you're spreading more FUD again. Is the Earth still flat?

> Oh, and viruses are primarily transmitted by aerosol,
> not droplets. Masks do nothing for aerosol.

Wow, you must be Data to have an aerosol coming out your nose and mouth
when you sneeze. Must look like a deodorant spray coming out your
orifices.

> This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
> trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
> diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
> killed. Political correctness kills.

You choose to ignore my statement that masks (not respirators or
ventilators, but passive cloth masks) are NOT for protecting you. They
are to protect others (by eliminating your projectiles getting past the
mask).

You+mask: Protect others from your sneezing and coughing.
Them+mask: Protect you from their sneezing and coughing.

On 8/18/21 2:08 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> Masks are no longer required if you've had the vaccine and booster
>>> (now the CDC is recommending 3 shots for highly susceptible
>>> persons).
>>
>> That floats around, especially since the jab does not work all that
>> well (break through infections). Some are saying that the
>> unvaccinated (it is not a vaccine) are threatening the jab with
>> variants. The science shows otherwise. It is the jab'ed that the
>> primary incubators. This would not be the case if the jab was a real
>> vaccine.
>
> I said masks are no longer required - in general since there are still
> exceptions. I did not say masks were superfluous after vaccination,
> and, in fact, I mentioned that the vaccinated may have attentuated
> symptoms while being carriers. Typhoid Mary never experienced the
> symptoms of typhoid.
>
>> The CDC will not release the data.
>
> You obviously haven't looked, and are making unsubstantiated claims to
> support your position.
>
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
> https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/2/pdfs/08-1167.pdf

Hmm, which one of the above shows

1) death rate from the mRNA therapy?

2) severe reactions to the mRNA therapy?

3) death rates for those with the mRNA therapy vs
those without the therapy?

4) Antibody Dependent Enhancement reactions for
those with the therapy?

5) what is the level of infections for those with
the therapy?

6) how are they testing for variants?

This is the data that is being withheld

>
> I didn't bother citing the rest from a simple "cdc data efficacy of
> masks" Google search.
>
>> I work for a guy that was in on the development of the N95 mask. He
>> told me viruses go right though. The above is bull shit.
>
> Talk to a college graduate that is trained in air flow engineering, like
> for HVAC. A 1 micron virus doesn't travel a straight line through a 1
> micron filter. No such thing as laminar airflow unless specifically
> engineered to reduce turbulence, and filters are the antithesis to
> laminar flow. Nor would a laminar flow through a filter impact a single
> fiber in the filter, because obviously they're layered or scattered for
> their fibers. "A guy said". Don't even take my word. Go do the
> research yourself. Take courses in college on aerodynamics to get an
> idea of airflow. My father had a master license in HVAC, and he spent
> many hours designing ductwork, fans, valves, and other controls trying
> to create as laminar flow as possible (least turbulence) to reduce the
> work needed to move an air mass. None of the face masks are designed,
> nor would they be, to produce least turbulence through the filter.
>
> Folks keep reciting the diameter of viruses based on their naked size.
> Virus immediately die (their coding spills out) without a wrapper to
> encapsulate them. Even a 0.2 micron virus will likely be larger than a
> 1 micron filter, and Covid19 viruses range from 0.6 to 2 microns when
> not naked. When naked, they die nearly immediately, and filters don't
> care about the size of naked and dead viral spew.
>
> Naked virus size is irrelevant to filter efficacy. The wrapped size is
> important, but you really think a 1 micro wrapped virus is getting
> through a 1 micron filter? Well, if so, enjoy walking through a mine
> field taking a straight path.
>
>>> The premise by the CDC was something was better than nothing.
>>
>> You mean the CDC that won't release data? The one that
>> won't release studies on off label drugs that are cheap?
>
> What? You've never been told by your mother to cover your cough with
> your hand, then with your cuff, then at your sleeve's elbow, or with a
> tissue or hankie? Well, why did she tell you to do that? Yeah, to
> prevent your projectile snot and spit from spraying out to collide into
> other humans. The CDC's recommendation was nothing more than
> re-proliferating lore. You thought the old adage long before SARS-1 and
> SARS-2 (named Covid-19) of controlling your ejection was somehow defined
> by some arbitrary netiquette?
>
>> The only thing that stops them is
>> respirators (Ebola suites).
>
> Um, you think there are no filters in those, huh? By count, respirators
> are more used in construction than in hospitals. They have positive air
> pressure to deliver filtered air to the wearer and prevent entry through
> any leakage points, like by the straps, and under the chin. Every
> asbestos remedial job requires respirators, not face masks. Despite
> wearing disposable hazmat suits, having a showering station, wearing
> respirators with positive pressure with a *filtered* air supply, and
> sealing off the house off and using negative pressure to prevent blowing
> out asbestos fibers into the remainder of the home, filters are highly
> involved in pumping cleaned air into the respirators and filtered fan
> pumping out the air in the work area. Working in fine silica (concrete
> mixing, sawing, jackhammering, grinding, abrasive blasting) should
> require a respirator, as when mixing mortar or sawing/cutting brick.
>
> Respirators are just better quality face masks (by using a full face
> mask that also covers the eyes, not just the nose and mouth), and use,
> as I recall, positive air pressure inside the mask, but they still do
> use filters. How do you think the cleaned air gets delivered inside the
> full face mask? Which rating they use for a filter depends on duration
> of use, and according to their resistance to oil vapor.
>
> N-series: Not resistant to oil mist.
> R-series: Oil-resistant for up to 1 work shift.
> P-series: Oil-proof.
>
> https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2020/08/17/respirators-construction/
>
> Yeah, I know a lot of workers don't wear respirators, and just use
> passive filtering, but then a lot of workers don't wear masks at all.
> I've seen plenty of workers jackhammering at concrete with no filter.
>
> Similarly, I've seen lots of employees working in build floor for
> mainframes that don't wear hearing protection. They lose their upper
> frequency range due to all the noise from all the fan in the computer
> components, for the HVAC fans at the exhaust vents, and the whine from
> the 3-phase generators supply power to the mainframes. I've also seen
> plenty of shooters not wearing hearing protection at the range. I wear
> both soft inserts and headset. If I have to remove the headset to
> participate in a discussion, I still have the earplugs which don't
> interfere with voice but handle the sharp bangs.
>
> Show me a respirator, even for hospitals, that doesn't have a filter.
> Oh, by the way, I think you're confusing respirators with ventilators.
> The latter uses positive pressure to help inflate the lungs of the
> patient with *filtered* air. My aunt worked at Medtronic who sells
> ventilator *filters*. They only go down to 0.3 microns, so a naked
> virus (highly unlikely it survives the distance between you and a
> sneezer) does get filtered out, again due to non-laminar air flow
> through the filter. A 0.2 micron virus isn't getting through a 0.2
> micron, or even 0.1 micron P-100 filter. But they do rate them as
> 99.999% effective, because statistically it is possible for an outlier
> to manage to wrangle through a filter without ever hitting a strand.
>
> So, what's your solution to filtering the air you breathe? Staying at
> home is not 100% safe, either. You receive postal mail, you might get
> your groceries delivered that the delivery person has touched (3 hours,
> or less, for Covid19 to die on paper bags), and the virus lasts longer
> on hard surfaces, like plastic bags (up to a week to survive), those
> canned goods that someone picked up at the store but put back on the
> shelf, or touched those veggies you bought, oh, and those vinyl gloves
> some folks were but don't remove them properly to avoid touching
> anything on them (and which increases the chance of spreading the virus
> that survives longer on them). How fast the wrapper gets broken is how
> long the virus survives, and softer more absorbent materials kill them
> faster, like those cloth masks, even the cheap ones (but you add
> moisture from your breath, and why disposable masks really should get
> disposed of).
>
>> If you look at the recommendation for all the mask nonsense, it is
>> just opinion: ass holes in white coats standing around pulling shit
>> out their learned asses. They NEVER back up what they say with
>> science as there is no actual science to back up their assertions.
>> You will notice that all the hard work you put into your letter, that
>> you could not cite a single proper scientific study to back your
>> assertions. This is clearly a propaganda narrative.
>
> Yep, you're spreading more FUD again. Is the Earth still flat?
>
>> Oh, and viruses are primarily transmitted by aerosol,
>> not droplets. Masks do nothing for aerosol.
>
> Wow, you must be Data to have an aerosol coming out your nose and mouth
> when you sneeze. Must look like a deodorant spray coming out your
> orifices.
>
>> This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
>> trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
>> diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
>> killed. Political correctness kills.
>
> You choose to ignore my statement that masks (not respirators or
> ventilators, but passive cloth masks) are NOT for protecting you. They
> are to protect others (by eliminating your projectiles getting past the
> mask).

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Hmm, which one of the above shows
>
> 1) death rate from the mRNA therapy?
>
> 2) severe reactions to the mRNA therapy?
>
> 3) death rates for those with the mRNA therapy vs
> those without the therapy?
>
> 4) Antibody Dependent Enhancement reactions for
> those with the therapy?
>
> 5) what is the level of infections for those with
> the therapy?
>
> 6) how are they testing for variants?
>
> This is the data that is being withheld

Ah, so you're attempting diversion from the discussion of masks at
reducing the infection count to the treatment of infection.

> Still don't work, either direction [to stop projectile snot and spit].

You must have super-velocity sneezes and coughs to penetrate cloth with
your projectile.

> Masks are not semiconductors.

Ah, now trying an invalid analogy. Masks are particulate blockers, not
conductors nor transporters.

> Prove it

Sorry, I don't argue with children, and I'm done arguing with petulant
you. No matter the evidence proving otherwise, you will remain adamant
that masks don't reduce infection count. Okay, bury your head in the
sand. Everyone else will stare at the weird kid trying to hide.

> You sure put a lot of effort in that. Unfortunately,
> ALL of the studies on masks on various types ALL
> show that they DO NOT work against the spread of
> viruses.

Interesting bias on your conclusion when the summaries declare
otherwise. Now I suspect you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and
arguing inanely just to occupy your time.

> Masks are for show and nothing else.

Boy, you sure are ticked at having to pay $2 for a 10-pack of disposable
masks. If you're that poor, lots of stores dole them out for free.

> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Masks are for show and nothing else.

Oh, I get it now. You're a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness,
Amish, Scientologist, or Fundamentalist. We should not do anything
against the will of God to afflict us with disease. You rely on prayer
and faith healing instead of prevention or intervention. That must save
you a lot on health plans and health care.

In article <sfi4v3$ejo$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >> This is my fear. If someone with a co-morbidity actually
> >> trusts the propaganda narrative and thinks a useless face
> >> diaper is going to protect them, they are going to get themselves
> >> killed. Political correctness kills.
> >>
> > nope.
> >
> > what kills is ignorance.
>
> That can't be the entire story...
>
> ...because "T" is still alive.
>
> :-)

give it time.

In article <sfioj2$it$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> The CDC will not release the data.
> >
> > You obviously haven't looked, and are making unsubstantiated claims to
> > support your position.
> >
> > https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
> >
> > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-sci
> > ence-sars-cov2.html
> > https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/2/pdfs/08-1167.pdf
>
>
> Hmm, which one of the above shows
>
> 1) death rate from the mRNA therapy?
>
> 2) severe reactions to the mRNA therapy?
>
> 3) death rates for those with the mRNA therapy vs
> those without the therapy?
>
> 4) Antibody Dependent Enhancement reactions for
> those with the therapy?
>
> 5) what is the level of infections for those with
> the therapy?
>
> 6) how are they testing for variants?
>
>
> This is the data that is being withheld

*nothing* is being withheld.

your inability to find the relevant information does not mean there's a
global plan to hide it from the entire planet. it just means you failed
to find it (likely never even looking for it in the first place). stop
believing the conspiracy websites that push fabricated bullshit
propaganda that is easily shown to be false.

you're also trying to change the topic to vaccines, what you
incorrectly call 'mrna therapy'. could that be because the above links
show that masks *do* work, the opposite of your narrative?

further, only two vaccines are mrna. the others use traditional methods.

in any event, not only is that information available, but there are
also videos online of the actual fda meetings, where the data about
each vaccine was discussed in great detail before approving it. they're
*really* long (8+ hours).

> > You choose to ignore my statement that masks (not respirators or
> > ventilators, but passive cloth masks) are NOT for protecting you. They
> > are to protect others (by eliminating your projectiles getting past the
> > mask).
>
> Still don't work, either direction. Masks are
> not semiconductors.

wtf do semiconductors have to do with anything?

or maybe the cdc is withholding secret information that semiconductors
are effective at preventing the spread of viruses. yep, that must be
it.

> > You+mask: Protect others from your sneezing and coughing.
>
> Prove it
>
> > Them+mask: Protect you from their sneezing and coughing.
>
> Prove it
>
> >
> > So, decide if you're not going to protect others,
>
> Prove it

it's been proven countless times.

you continually ignore the proof because it doesn't fit your
preconceived ideas that are trivially shown to be false.

> You sure put a lot of effort in that. Unfortunately,
> ALL of the studies on masks on various types ALL
> show that they DO NOT work against the spread of
> viruses.

very much false.

what's hilarious is that the links *you* provided about mask efficacy
show that masks *are* effective.

> The studies that you show are on particles. That is
> only a starting point. The rubber hits the road
> when you test them against actual viruses and
> infection rates. MASKS DO NOT WORK. Even Dr.
> Flip Flop (speaking of ass holes in white coats
> pulling things out their butts) in his freedom
> of information release of his eMails said they
> did not.

also false.

stop reading the nutjob conspiracy websites.

> Masks are for show and nothing else.

keep thinking that and you'll find out the hard way how easily covid
can spread.

On 8/18/21 4:31 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Masks are for show and nothing else.
>
> Oh, I get it now. You're a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness,
> Amish, Scientologist, or Fundamentalist. We should not do anything
> against the will of God to afflict us with disease. You rely on prayer
> and faith healing instead of prevention or intervention. That must save
> you a lot on health plans and health care.
>

Hi Vanguard,

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Ad Hominem

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing
someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or
some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious
attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

Examples:

1. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this
book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.

2. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What
could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.

3. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like
that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one
marriage she's broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything,
much less morality?

4. Of course Marx' theories about the ideal society are bunk. The
guy spent all his time in the library.

5. We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a
bunch of hippie communist weirdos.

6. There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the
Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this
concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.

7. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a
new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise,
since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.

8. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views
against the objections of ignoramuses.

And you used them on someone who thinks of you as
a friend. Clean up your act. And you owe me
an apology.

-T

-T

On 8/18/21 4:24 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, which one of the above shows
>>
>> 1) death rate from the mRNA therapy?
>>
>> 2) severe reactions to the mRNA therapy?
>>
>> 3) death rates for those with the mRNA therapy vs
>> those without the therapy?
>>
>> 4) Antibody Dependent Enhancement reactions for
>> those with the therapy?
>>
>> 5) what is the level of infections for those with
>> the therapy?
>>
>> 6) how are they testing for variants?
>>
>> This is the data that is being withheld
>
> Ah, so you're attempting diversion from the discussion of masks at
> reducing the infection count to the treatment of infection.
>
>> Still don't work, either direction [to stop projectile snot and spit].
>
> You must have super-velocity sneezes and coughs to penetrate cloth with
> your projectile.
>
>> Masks are not semiconductors.
>
> Ah, now trying an invalid analogy. Masks are particulate blockers, not
> conductors nor transporters.
>
>> Prove it
>
> Sorry, I don't argue with children, and I'm done arguing with petulant
> you. No matter the evidence proving otherwise, you will remain adamant
> that masks don't reduce infection count. Okay, bury your head in the
> sand. Everyone else will stare at the weird kid trying to hide.
>
>> You sure put a lot of effort in that. Unfortunately,
>> ALL of the studies on masks on various types ALL
>> show that they DO NOT work against the spread of
>> viruses.
>
> Interesting bias on your conclusion when the summaries declare
> otherwise. Now I suspect you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and
> arguing inanely just to occupy your time. >
>> Masks are for show and nothing else.
>
> Boy, you sure are ticked at having to pay $2 for a 10-pack of disposable
> masks. If you're that poor, lots of stores dole them out for free.
>

Hi Vanguard,

You can even debate your viewpoint, so you revert
to name calling.

Here is some homework for you:

On respiratory droplets and face masks
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044

The above shows how masks actually work. Aerosol
goes right through.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory
viruses
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full

The pooled results of randomised trials did not show
a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection
with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal
influenza.

The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a
systematic review of the scientific evidence
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/

None of the studies established a conclusive
relationship between mask/respirator use and
protection against influenza infection.

CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’
or ‘Often’
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare
Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article#tnF2

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks
are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza
transmission, either when worn by infected persons
(source control) or by persons in the general community
to reduce their susceptibility

If masks actually worked, there would be clear
scientific evidence that they did. AND THERE
IS NONE.

And you so much as admitted to this when you
reverted to name calling, instead of arguing
your point with actual science.

It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind. You
just have to use real, actual science. Name calling
does not cut it.

-T

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/18/21 4:24 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, which one of the above shows
>>>
>>> 1) death rate from the mRNA therapy?
>>>
>>> 2) severe reactions to the mRNA therapy?
>>>
>>> 3) death rates for those with the mRNA therapy vs
>>> those without the therapy?
>>>
>>> 4) Antibody Dependent Enhancement reactions for
>>> those with the therapy?
>>>
>>> 5) what is the level of infections for those with
>>> the therapy?
>>>
>>> 6) how are they testing for variants?
>>>
>>> This is the data that is being withheld
>>
>> Ah, so you're attempting diversion from the discussion of masks at
>> reducing the infection count to the treatment of infection.
>>
>>> Still don't work, either direction [to stop projectile snot and spit].
>>
>> You must have super-velocity sneezes and coughs to penetrate cloth with
>> your projectile.
>>
>>> Masks are not semiconductors.
>>
>> Ah, now trying an invalid analogy. Masks are particulate blockers, not
>> conductors nor transporters.
>>
>>> Prove it
>>
>> Sorry, I don't argue with children, and I'm done arguing with petulant
>> you. No matter the evidence proving otherwise, you will remain adamant
>> that masks don't reduce infection count. Okay, bury your head in the
>> sand. Everyone else will stare at the weird kid trying to hide.
>>
>>> You sure put a lot of effort in that. Unfortunately,
>>> ALL of the studies on masks on various types ALL
>>> show that they DO NOT work against the spread of
>>> viruses.
>>
>> Interesting bias on your conclusion when the summaries declare
>> otherwise. Now I suspect you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and
>> arguing inanely just to occupy your time. >
>>> Masks are for show and nothing else.
>>
>> Boy, you sure are ticked at having to pay $2 for a 10-pack of disposable
>> masks. If you're that poor, lots of stores dole them out for free.
>>
>
> Hi Vanguard,
>
> You can even debate your viewpoint, so you revert
> to name calling.
>
> Here is some homework for you:
>
> On respiratory droplets and face masks
> https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044
>
> The above shows how masks actually work. Aerosol
> goes right through.
>
> Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory
> viruses
> https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
>
> The pooled results of randomised trials did not show
> a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection
> with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal
> influenza.
>
> The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a
> systematic review of the scientific evidence
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
>
> None of the studies established a conclusive
> relationship between mask/respirator use and
> protection against influenza infection.
>
> CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’
> or ‘Often’
> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
>
> Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare
> Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article#tnF2
>
> We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks
> are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza
> transmission, either when worn by infected persons
> (source control) or by persons in the general community
> to reduce their susceptibility
>
> If masks actually worked, there would be clear
> scientific evidence that they did. AND THERE
> IS NONE.
>
> And you so much as admitted to this when you
> reverted to name calling, instead of arguing
> your point with actual science.
>
> It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind. You
> just have to use real, actual science. Name calling
> does not cut it.
>
> -T

And you behave like masks are something new and relevant to only the
Covid19 virus. Masks have been around for a hundred years. If they
were bogus, they would've ended their usage decades ago.

Instead of acknowledging the evidence, you deny it. So no amount of
evidence will convince you.

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind. You
> just have to use real, actual science.

Your pants are on fire.

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/18/21 4:31 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Masks are for show and nothing else.
>>
>> Oh, I get it now. You're a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness,
>> Amish, Scientologist, or Fundamentalist. We should not do anything
>> against the will of God to afflict us with disease. You rely on prayer
>> and faith healing instead of prevention or intervention. That must save
>> you a lot on health plans and health care.
>>
>
> Hi Vanguard,
>
> https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
>
> Ad Hominem
>
> (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing
> someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or
> some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious
> attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this
> book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
>
> 2. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What
> could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.
>
> 3. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like
> that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one
> marriage she's broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything,
> much less morality?
>
> 4. Of course Marx' theories about the ideal society are bunk. The
> guy spent all his time in the library.
>
> 5. We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a
> bunch of hippie communist weirdos.
>
> 6. There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the
> Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this
> concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.
>
> 7. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a
> new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise,
> since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.
>
> 8. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views
> against the objections of ignoramuses.
>
> And you used them on someone who thinks of you as
> a friend. Clean up your act. And you owe me
> an apology.
>
> -T
>
> -T

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, eats like a
duck, shits like a duck, mates like a duck. You're a duck. You joined
the group that refutes all medical studies and scientific surveys along
with de facto evidence and instead has an inner ear privy to God's
declarations. You're part of that group. You declare that the lack of
evidence (which is false) means your opinion must be truth, but any
conclusion can be reached without collaboration. Yep, I'm supposed to
believe one joker in Usenet over all the medical whitepapers and
scientific surveys, and de facto evidence established for a hundred
years. You have your unsubstantiated opinion. It's unsubstantiated
because you declare there is no scientific or medical evidence.
Everyone that believes differently just must surely be wrong. We must
take your opinion over that of others that are highly more qualified
than you in the medical field. When did you get your doctor's degree?

So, during the height of the pandemic did you have a couple hundred
friends and family members that didn't wear masks as a control group,
and another couple hundred others that wore masks to determine how many
in each group got sick? Nope. You're basing your conclusion (false
consensus effect) on just your own experience which presupposes that you
were exposed to hundreds of people, exposure was daily, and you never
wore a mask at any time during the pandemic while violating both
property owner and legal mandates.

Your argument smacks of someone claiming that condoms never reduce the
chance of pregnacy, that brushing your teeth won't reduce the chance of
gingivitis and tooth decay, fluoridated mouthwash never reduces caries,
asthma inhalers don't reduce symptoms, or other prophylactics never
reduce risk and never add protection. To you, all the evidence is
wrong, or what there is doesn't count as evidence, or the lack of
evidence means your conclusion just must be correct. If, as you say,
there is no evidence then no conclusion by you is valid. I could say
scarves kill due to suffocation. Gee, now where am I going to get
evidence for that? Since there isn't any, or any that I refute as being
incorrect or invalid, then there isn't any, so my declaration must be
correct.

Enjoy taking the risks. Be sure to hide from the world to not afflict
others with your dubious and unsubstantiated conclusions.

Are we having fun yet? ;->

On 8/19/21 12:54 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/18/21 4:24 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind. You
>> just have to use real, actual science. Name calling
>> does not cut it.
>>
>> -T
>
> And you behave like masks are something new and relevant to only the
> Covid19 virus.

When have I said that? I even gave you studies and the
flu virus. Masks did not help. Where did you get the
idea I was constraining to the commie flu?

> Masks have been around for a hundred years. If they
> were bogus, they would've ended their usage decades ago.
>
> Instead of acknowledging the evidence, you deny it. So no amount of
> evidence will convince you.

You have NO evidence. Send me some and I promise I will
look at it.

Everything I have found so far is to the
contrary. Masks are clearly a propaganda narrative:
makes the authorities look like they are doing something, when they are
not. Instead of protecting those at risk,
they posture and act like they are doing something
meaningful by harassing the healthy who do not need
protection.

>

Vanguard,

You provided zero scientific evidence. You only
provided your "opinion". Guys standing around it
white lab coats pulling things out their asses do
not count. "Opinion" fall in that category

I provided you with sound scientific evidence.
This is NOT MY OPINION. Can you tell the
difference between science and opinion?

And there are a lot of things that have been practiced
for thousands of years. Since we now have the scientific
method, those thousand year practices are a good starting
point for actual scientific research to prove or disprove.

TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) has been putting
their thousand year old medicines through the scientific
process (randomized double blinded clinical trials) for
the last 100 or so years now. They have fascinating
results. Ya, they work a lot of the time. TCM is
YUGE now on the scientific process. You think something
works: now prove it properly.

By the way "deny" is a religious term. Religion and
science do not mix. There are no "axioms" in science.
With you, I am starting to think I am debating one
of your closely held axioms.

-T

On 8/19/21 1:42 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/18/21 4:31 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Masks are for show and nothing else.
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it now. You're a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness,
>>> Amish, Scientologist, or Fundamentalist. We should not do anything
>>> against the will of God to afflict us with disease. You rely on prayer
>>> and faith healing instead of prevention or intervention. That must save
>>> you a lot on health plans and health care.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vanguard,
>>
>> https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
>>
>> Ad Hominem
>>
>> (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing
>> someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or
>> some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious
>> attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> 1. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this
>> book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
>>
>> 2. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What
>> could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.
>>
>> 3. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like
>> that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one
>> marriage she's broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything,
>> much less morality?
>>
>> 4. Of course Marx' theories about the ideal society are bunk. The
>> guy spent all his time in the library.
>>
>> 5. We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a
>> bunch of hippie communist weirdos.
>>
>> 6. There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the
>> Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this
>> concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.
>>
>> 7. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a
>> new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise,
>> since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.
>>
>> 8. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views
>> against the objections of ignoramuses.
>>
>> And you used them on someone who thinks of you as
>> a friend. Clean up your act. And you owe me
>> an apology.
>>
>> -T
>>
>> -T
>
> Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, eats like a
> duck, shits like a duck, mates like a duck. You're a duck. You joined
> the group that refutes all medical studies and scientific surveys along
> with de facto evidence and instead has an inner ear privy to God's
> declarations. You're part of that group. You declare that the lack of
> evidence (which is false) means your opinion must be truth, but any
> conclusion can be reached without collaboration. Yep, I'm supposed to
> believe one joker in Usenet over all the medical whitepapers and
> scientific surveys, and de facto evidence established for a hundred
> years. You have your unsubstantiated opinion. It's unsubstantiated
> because you declare there is no scientific or medical evidence.
> Everyone that believes differently just must surely be wrong. We must
> take your opinion over that of others that are highly more qualified
> than you in the medical field. When did you get your doctor's degree?
>
> So, during the height of the pandemic did you have a couple hundred
> friends and family members that didn't wear masks as a control group,
> and another couple hundred others that wore masks to determine how many
> in each group got sick? Nope. You're basing your conclusion (false
> consensus effect) on just your own experience which presupposes that you
> were exposed to hundreds of people, exposure was daily, and you never
> wore a mask at any time during the pandemic while violating both
> property owner and legal mandates.
>
> Your argument smacks of someone claiming that condoms never reduce the
> chance of pregnacy, that brushing your teeth won't reduce the chance of
> gingivitis and tooth decay, fluoridated mouthwash never reduces caries,
> asthma inhalers don't reduce symptoms, or other prophylactics never
> reduce risk and never add protection. To you, all the evidence is
> wrong, or what there is doesn't count as evidence, or the lack of
> evidence means your conclusion just must be correct. If, as you say,
> there is no evidence then no conclusion by you is valid. I could say
> scarves kill due to suffocation. Gee, now where am I going to get
> evidence for that? Since there isn't any, or any that I refute as being
> incorrect or invalid, then there isn't any, so my declaration must be
> correct.
>
> Enjoy taking the risks. Be sure to hide from the world to not afflict
> others with your dubious and unsubstantiated conclusions.
>
> Are we having fun yet? ;->
>

More Ad Hominem attacks.

Did I violate some religious tenant of yours by
using the scientific method?

You still owe me an apology.

In article <sfmdbe$5qe$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind. You
> > just have to use real, actual science.
>
> Your pants are on fire.

if only masks worked, then he could use one to block all of the smoke...

In article <sfmbto$ra9$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/18/21 4:24 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't argue with children, and I'm done arguing with petulant
> > you. No matter the evidence proving otherwise, you will remain adamant
> > that masks don't reduce infection count. Okay, bury your head in the
> > sand. Everyone else will stare at the weird kid trying to hide.
> >
> >> You sure put a lot of effort in that. Unfortunately,
> >> ALL of the studies on masks on various types ALL
> >> show that they DO NOT work against the spread of
> >> viruses.
> >
> > Interesting bias on your conclusion when the summaries declare
> > otherwise. Now I suspect you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and
> > arguing inanely just to occupy your time. >
> >> Masks are for show and nothing else.
> >
> > Boy, you sure are ticked at having to pay $2 for a 10-pack of disposable
> > masks. If you're that poor, lots of stores dole them out for free.
> >
>
> Hi Vanguard,
>
> You can even debate your viewpoint, so you revert
> to name calling.
>
> Here is some homework for you:
>
> On respiratory droplets and face masks
> https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044
>
> The above shows how masks actually work. Aerosol
> goes right through.

actually, it doesn't show that at all.

what it shows is that 'the nominal efficiency of the present mask is
~91%', the opposite of ;goes right through'.

it also found that masks 'significantly reduces the droplet cloud'.

yet another finding was that the distance droplets traveled is about
half as far with a mask than without one.

in other words, masks are highly effective, although not perfect
(nothing is).

Wearing a mask close enough to the face significantly reduces
the droplet cloud. However, some droplets still continue traveling
to considerable distance, even further than 1 m (see at 2 s and 3 s
in Fig. 6). Wearing a mask also reduces the lateral dispersion, but
it does not eliminate it (Figs. 8 and 9). As we will show in Sec. III
C, the nominal efficiency of the present mask is ~91%.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Without wearing a mask, droplets travel to about 70 cm.
2. Wearing a mask, the bulk of droplets will travel about half
the distance.
....
10. By wearing a mask, it will also provide greater protection to
the wearer as it blocks the droplets expelled from another subject
and further decelerates the incoming jet.

if any of the above is confusing, there are some clear diagrams that
show how effective masks actually are:
<https://aip.scitation.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/aip/journals/c
ontent/phf/2020/phf.2020.32.issue-6/5.0015044/20200613/images/large/5.00
15044.figures.online.f6.jpeg>
<https://aip.scitation.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/aip/journals/c
ontent/phf/2020/phf.2020.32.issue-6/5.0015044/20200613/images/medium/5.0
015044.figures.online.f11.jpg>

>
> Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory
> viruses
> https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
>
> The pooled results of randomised trials did not show
> a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection
> with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal
> influenza.

selective snipping to alter context.

just prior to the above sentence is the following:

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome
measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions
during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising
the findings to the current COVID 19 pandemic.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low
moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the
effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different
from the observed estimate of the effect.

in other words, that study is mostly worthless.

> The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a
> systematic review of the scientific evidence
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
>
> None of the studies established a conclusive
> relationship between mask/respirator use and
> protection against influenza infection.

more selective snipping to alter context.

the very next sentence:

Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as
part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.
The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

you also ignored the conclusion:

A trial conducted amongst crowded, urban households found that,
despite poor compliance, mask wearing coupled with hand sanitiser
use, reduced secondary transmission of upper respiratory
infection/influenza-like illness/laboratory-confirmed influenza
compared with education; hand sanitiser alone resulted in no
reduction in this aggregated outcome.11

Another study found a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed
influenza amongst household contacts that began hand hygiene or
hand hygiene plus a mask within 36 hours of the index case s
illness.8 A trial conducted amongst resident university students
detected significant reductions in influenza-like illness during
weeks 4 6 in the mask and hand hygiene group after adjusting for
vaccine receipt and other potential confounders.10

All but two12, 13 of the case­control studies in healthcare workers
reported that wearing masks and/or respirators appeared to protect
workers from acquiring SARS.14-17

> CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ŒAlways¹
> or ŒOften¹
> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

nope. that study was widely misrepresented.

<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/politics/fact-check-trump-cdc-masks-85-p
ercent/index.html>
...The CDC study, which was released in September, did not say that
85% of all people who wear masks get infected with the coronavirus.
In fact, it did not even attempt to figure out what percentage of
people who wear a mask get infected with the coronavirus.
....
Here's how one of the co-authors, Christopher Lindsell, co-director
of the Center for Health Data Science at Vanderbilt University
Medical Center, described the study's data on masks.

"The data suggest that among a group of patients who are already
showing symptoms that prompted them to get testing for the virus,
there was no statistical evidence of a difference in mask wearing
behavior between those who tested positive and those who tested
negative," Lindsell said in an email. "This is very different from
the question of whether wearing masks prevents you becoming
infected with the virus, and it is also different to the question of
how many or what percentage of people who wear masks contract
the virus. The study was not designed to answer these questions."
....
And while, again, 70.6% of the infected people said they had "always"
worn a mask over the previous 14 days, 40.9% also said they had gone
to a restaurant -- where, obviously, people take off their masks.
....
There is scientific evidence that masks provide protection to the
people who wear them. But even if mask-wearers do end up getting
infected, that does not mean masks aren't working at all -- because
masks can still help others from getting infected. Haynes said, "CDC
guidance on masks has clearly stated that wearing a mask is intended
to protect other people in case the mask wearer is infected."

<https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-cdc-study-exposure/fact-ch
eck-misrepresented-cdc-study-about-community-exposure-to-the-new-coronav
irus-idUSKBN2741WF>
Jason McDonald, a spokesman for the CDC, told Reuters via email that
³the aim of the study was to assess possible situations for community
exposure, not mask use.² The study, McDonald noted, found that ³going
to places where mask use and social distancing cannot be maintained²,
like restaurants, coffee shops and bars, ³might be an important risk
factor for COVID-19.²

For each reported activity, participants were asked to quantify
degree of adherence to recommendations such as wearing a face
mask of any kind or social distancing among other persons at that
location, with response options ranging from ³none² to ³almost all.²
Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed to compare
case-patients with control-participants, assessing differences in
demographic characteristics, community exposures, and close
contact. Although an effort was made initially to match case-patients
to control-participants based on a 1:2 ratio, not all potential
participants were eligible or completed an inter- view, and
therefore an unmatched analysis was performed.

On 8/19/21 12:54 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Masks have been around for a hundred years

Here is a fun one!

https://plaguedoctormasks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/plague-doctor-masks-for-sale.jpg

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/19/21 12:54 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/18/21 4:24 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind. You
>>> just have to use real, actual science. Name calling
>>> does not cut it.
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>> And you behave like masks are something new and relevant to only the
>> Covid19 virus.
>
> When have I said that? I even gave you studies and the
> flu virus. Masks did not help. Where did you get the
> idea I was constraining to the commie flu?
>
>> Masks have been around for a hundred years. If they
>> were bogus, they would've ended their usage decades ago.
>>
>> Instead of acknowledging the evidence, you deny it. So no amount of
>> evidence will convince you.
>
> You have NO evidence. Send me some and I promise I will
> look at it.

Here you go.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

"Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be
considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected
individuals, but it would be better than no protection."

BTW this paper is from researchers at Porton Down the UK's leading
infectious disease and bioweapons research institution so they know exactly
what they're talking about.

Todd has killfiled me - he can't handle facts - but others can highlight
this study for him. He'll ignore it of course.

On 7/26/21 6:17 AM, Rabid Roach wrote:
> But nospamipedia and its infinite wealth of knowledge told me the
> vaccines are safe!
>
> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9480051/Medical-student-21-died-day-getting-J-J-vaccine.html>
>
>
> <https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/39-year-old-dies-after-astrazeneca-vaccine-a-second-dose-following-sinovac>
>
>
> <https://www.the-sun.com/news/2305200/doctor-dies-36-others-develop-rare-blood-disorder-vaccines/>
>
>
> <https://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailand-national-news/woman-dies-after-second-vaccine-dose-under-mix-and-match-program/>
>
>
> <https://globalnews.ca/news/7835081/alberta-woman-death-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/>
>
>
> <https://greekreporter.com/2021/06/18/greek-woman-dies-after-second-pfizer-vaccine/>
>
>
> Had these people never gotten the vaccine, they would still be alive
> today. But remember to do the right thing and get vaccinated, people!
>
> NOSPAMIPEDIA DEMANDS IT!
>

Double vaxxed are dying at a rate 434% higher than the unvaccinated.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012644/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf

14 days post dose 2 Cases: 73,372 Deaths: 679

Unvaccinated Cases: 183,133 Deaths: 390

-------------------------------------
Vaccinated
679 / 73,372 = 0.00925421

0.00925421 * 100,000 = 925 deaths per 100 thousand (>14 days post dose 2)

--------------------------------------
Scapegoated unvaccinated
390 / 183,133 = 0.0021296

0.0021296 * 100,000 = 213 deaths per 100 thousand (Unvaccinated

In article <sgr4u4$kr5$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> Double vaxxed are dying at a rate 434% higher than the unvaccinated.

no they're very definitely not.

T wrote:

> Double vaxxed are dying at a rate 434% higher than the unvaccinated.
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012644/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf
>
>
> 14 days post dose 2 Cases: 73,372 Deaths: 679
>
> Unvaccinated Cases: 183,133 Deaths: 390
>
> -------------------------------------
> Vaccinated
> 679 / 73,372 = 0.00925421
>
> 0.00925421 * 100,000 = 925 deaths per 100 thousand (>14 days post dose 2)
>
> --------------------------------------
> Scapegoated unvaccinated
> 390 / 183,133 = 0.0021296
>
> 0.0021296 * 100,000 = 213 deaths per 100 thousand (Unvaccinated
>
>

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/569730-covid-19-vaccines-work-misreading-the-data-can-make-you-think-otherwise

"On Aug. 25 (the most recent data available), there were

208 unvaccinated
13 partially vaccinated and
257 vaccinated people over age 60 with severe COVID-19 cases,

When looking at these absolute numbers, it appears at first glance
that the vaccines are not protecting against severe illness in this
age group or that it is better only to have one dose. But this is
because nearly everyone (about 90 percent) in this age group is
fully vaccinated, and the other two groups are much smaller."

"When we re-analyze the same Aug. 25 data to account for the proper
base rate (cases per 100,000 in the three vaccination groups), we see
that the rate of severe cases in the

unvaccinated group (266 per 100,000) and
partially vaccinated (58 per 100,000) are much higher than in the
fully vaccinated group (19 per 100,000).
"

I was unable to acquire *any* raw counts in a table. All data
was "processed for easy consumption" and on the face of it was "wrong".
For example, the UK table 6, I was not able to find a plain English
explanation of what the table was trying to get across. I suspect
something along the lines of "thehill.com" article, but I cannot
prove it to your high standards.

The Israeli table was only in Hebrew, and translate.google.com could
not finish a translation of the table. Just a spinning graphic
was presented by translate.google.com and that was it.

Paul

On 02/09/2021 19:25, T wrote:
> On 7/26/21 6:17 AM, Rabid Roach wrote:
>> But nospamipedia and its infinite wealth of knowledge told me the
>> vaccines are safe!
>>
>> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9480051/Medical-student-21-died-day-getting-J-J-vaccine.html>
>>
>>
>> <https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/39-year-old-dies-after-astrazeneca-vaccine-a-second-dose-following-sinovac>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.the-sun.com/news/2305200/doctor-dies-36-others-develop-rare-blood-disorder-vaccines/>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailand-national-news/woman-dies-after-second-vaccine-dose-under-mix-and-match-program/>
>>
>>
>> <https://globalnews.ca/news/7835081/alberta-woman-death-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/>
>>
>>
>> <https://greekreporter.com/2021/06/18/greek-woman-dies-after-second-pfizer-vaccine/>
>>
>>
>> Had these people never gotten the vaccine, they would still be alive
>> today. But remember to do the right thing and get vaccinated, people!
>>
>> NOSPAMIPEDIA DEMANDS IT!
>>
>
> Double vaxxed are dying at a rate 434% higher than the unvaccinated.
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012644/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf
>
>
> 14 days post dose 2 Cases: 73,372          Deaths: 679
>
> Unvaccinated             Cases: 183,133         Deaths: 390
>
> -------------------------------------
> Vaccinated
> 679 / 73,372 = 0.00925421
>
> 0.00925421 * 100,000 = 925 deaths per 100 thousand (>14 days post dose 2)
>
> --------------------------------------
> Scapegoated unvaccinated
> 390 / 183,133 = 0.0021296
>
> 0.0021296 * 100,000 = 213 deaths per 100 thousand (Unvaccinated

Now factor in the fact that ~80% of the population (nearer to 95% in the
over 65s) are double jabbed in the UK. Adjust that for the age
distribution for the two cohorts above and THEN compare against the
background of a growing rate of positive case across the population to
see what it would have been WITHOUT a vaccine.
https://theconversation.com/covid-the-reason-cases-are-rising-among-the-double-vaccinated-its-not-because-vaccines-arent-working-164797

What you're not understanding is that even in a 100% fully vaccinated
population we would still see hospitalisations and deaths. That doesn't
mean the vaccines don't work. We know that they do and have saved over
100,000 lives.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report-published

Epidemiology is hard. Is isn't just a case of dividing two numbers and
comparing them.

What you've done is the equivalent of 2 + 2 = 83

What's worse is that you're using your bad maths to justify your own
bias and propagating the spread of the virus which is killing people
both vaccinated and unvaccinated. You're simply making everything harder
and worse for everyone including yourself.