- Joined
- Jun 5, 2021
- Messages
- 1,970
- Reaction score
- 841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
So do you agree with jaeger 2.0 that the only reason to wear a flimsy cloth or even paper surgical face mask or have face mask mandates is the hope that they might be effective for source control? I say might because there is not a single RCT demonstrating that such flimsy face masks actually work for source control. Seems we need some data on the efficacy of various types of face masks for reducing the risk of the wearer catching the Wuhan virus as well as some credible research showing which types of face masks are effective or more effective for source control. There is a name for making scientifically unsubstantiated health claims for profit. It is called quackery.You stupidly return to the "masks are ineffective in protecting the wearer" routine when that is NOT what the mask mandates are intended to do.
Maybe if you, Fledermaus, Quag, snakestretcher and others who are confused about reality stopped post misinformation about CoVID-19 we'd have fewer deaths with COVID-19?
So do you agree with jaeger 2.0 that the only reason to wear a flimsy cloth or even paper surgical face mask or have face mask mandates is the hope that they might be effective for source control?
I say might because there is not a single RCT demonstrating that such flimsy face masks actually work for source control. Seems we need some data on the efficacy of various types of face masks for reducing the risk of the wearer catching the Wuhan virus as well as some credible research showing which types of face masks are effective or more effective for source control. There is a name for making scientifically unsubstantiated health claims for profit. It is called quackery.
You need to stop lying. The reason for face masks mandates and for recommending face masks.. is because of slowing the spread through source controlNo one!?!?!? This is what you stated in your POST #3268:
"If masks were a drug then in no way would the FDA withdraw approval.. not when there is a plethora of good evidence that shows that masks work as source control. In addition.. even for wearer protection..it would not be [with]drawn.. because there is also good evidence that it helps grant some wearer protection.. AND there is virtually no medical risk to wearing a mask." Jaeger19
So do not pretend that you never claimed face masks protect the wearer. It is likely most people are wearing face masks are doing because they have been duped into believing flimsy cloth face masks protect them from catching SARS-CoV2. The best evidence suggests that is not the case for flimsy cloth face masks that most of the public is wearing and been misled into believing are protecting them from being infected with the Wuhan virus. The only RCT of paper surgical face masks in Denmark showed they too provided no statistically significant protection against the wearer catching the Wuhan virus. At best, flimsy cloth and the paper surgical masks offer little or no protection against catching the Wuhan virus. N95 masks [especially if checked for leaks] certainly offer some protection against infection, but plenty of people have caught the Wuhan virus wearing them too.
Seriously dude you need to stop lying and be more honest about what the scientific research suggests is and is not most likely to be reality.
I did not lie. I posted what you stated in your Post #3268. How am I lying when I posted your own words? Now you are claiming that I am pretending you: "...have been claiming over and over we need to be wearing masks for our protection. I have NEVER made that statement." jaeger19.So don;t lie and claim that I have been claiming over and over we need to be wearing masks for our protection. I have NEVER made that statement.
Actually, the Danish RCT on the efficacy of wearing paper surgical face masks did NOT find those face masks significantly reduced the risk of the wearer catching the Wuhan virus. It was not even close to be statistically significant. Perhaps statistics is not your forte?THERE IS EVIDENCE.. that wearing a mask grants the wearer ... SOME protection. [1] THE DANISH RTC.. that you are so fond of talking about.. actually found some evidence that wearing a mask may afford the wearer some protection. [2] Other studies have found the same thing. That wearing a mask.. may afford some protection for the wearer. [3]
YOU however.. have completely and utterly ignored that research and that point. and continually misconstrue what has been said by me and others and the CDC..
I did not lie. I posted what you stated in your Post #3268. How am I lying when I posted your own words? Now you are claiming that I am pretending you: "...have been claiming over and over we need to be wearing masks for our protection. I have NEVER made that statement." jaeger19.
So now I have proven your claim that you "never once claimed face masks protect the wearer" from infection with SARS-CoV2.
Now you say you have never stated you have made that claim that face masks protect the wearer "over and over again". Again this is not true. Let's take a look at your own written words:
"THERE IS EVIDENCE.. that wearing a mask grants the wearer.. SOME protection." jaeger19 post #5604
So in Post #5604 you again claimed face masks protect the wearer. I have only added the numbers (1,2,& 3) to your statement to show you then claimed 3 more times that face masks do protect the wearer from infection with the Wuhan virus. Then you misinterpreted what the Danish RCT results that showed no significant reduction in infections with the Wuhan virus with the wearing of face masks.
Actually, the Danish RCT on the efficacy of wearing paper surgical face masks did NOT find those face masks significantly reduced the risk of the wearer catching the Wuhan virus. It was not even close to be statistically significant. Perhaps statistics is not your forte?
Let's review. I correctly pointed out that you falsely claimed you never stated face masks protect the wearer. I posted your own words from your Post # 3268 that proved that was not true. Either you lied or perhaps you forgot what you have been posting here about face masks protecting the wearer.
And now you have oddly repeated the claim that face masks protect the wearer from infection with the Wuhan virus over and over and over (3X) again. Then you falsely claim I am the one ignoring the research and misconstruing what you have stated. You have been hoist by your own petard dude. Try to deal with that reality and stop pretending you are the expert and I am confused. That is the opposite of reality. I checked.
Holy crap are you kidding? OVer and over and over again.. I have explained that we need to being wearing masks BECAUSE OF ITS ROLE IN SOURCE CONTROL...I did not lie.
Right.. I stated that there was some evidence that it provided SOME protection."THERE IS EVIDENCE.. that wearing a mask grants the wearer.. SOME protection." jaeger19 post #5604
So in Post #5604 you again claimed face masks protect the wearer. I have only added the numbers (1,2,& 3) to your statement to show you then claimed 3 more times that face masks do protect the wearer from infection with the Wuhan virus. Then you misinterpreted what the Danish RCT results that showed no significant reduction in infections with the Wuhan irus with the wearing of face masks
You liar.. there it is. I never "misinterpreted the danish study... ".. I pointed out that it the research didn't find a statistically significant effect.Great. I am not going to argue to much about it because frankly.. the research doesn';t really support that masks alone have a statistically significant effect in protecting the wearer.
Stop lying.The DANISH study DID find evidence of a protective effect of masks.., The data showed that there MIGHT be some protection.. but that data didn;t reach statistically significance... and why perhaps?
"We designed the study to detect a reduction in infection rate from 2% to 1%. Although no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers. These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect
Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting."
I don;t think he is playing.Citing a report that wearing a mask benefits the wearer appears to trigger you.
Why?
It is an added benefit to the mask mandate.
Why do you play stupid?
Well as a reality checker I expose dubious claims as incredible. If you stop pretending there is no convincing evidence to disprove what I have stating here all along than I will stop pointing out you are erroneously still pretending flimsy cloth face masks and paper surgical masks protect the person wearing it from getting infected with the Wuhan virus.Citing a report that wearing a mask benefits the wearer appears to trigger you.
Wrong it is a dubious benefit of wearing flimsy face masks.It is an added benefit to the mask mandate.
That is pretty amusing comment coming from someone who seems incapable of critically assessing the scientific evidence. It is called projection.Why do you play stupid?
How is my posting your words that contradict what you have and continue to claim is somehow now proof of me lying? You keep trying to pretend wearing flimsy face masks protects the wearer, but there remains no convincing evidence that face masks actually prevent people from catching the Wuhan virus. I have said all along that the best evidence to date suggests the person wearing a flimsy cloth and even paper surgical masks gets very little or no protection from catching the Wuhan virus by wearing such masks.Holy crap are you kidding? OVer and over and over again.. I have explained that we need to being wearing masks BECAUSE OF ITS ROLE IN SOURCE CONTROL...
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I NEVER SAID THE REASON THAT WE NEED TO WEAR MASKS WAS BECAUSE OF PROTECTING THE WEARER!!!
NEVER.
What I have said..is that yes..there is some evidence that masks may offer some protection to the wearer. But I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT IT WAS THE REASON TO WEAR THEM.
AND THE RESEARCH I USED TO PROVE THAT PREMISE WAS ON SOURCE CONTROL.. NOT ON WEARER PROTECTION.
any suggestion that I said anything or meant anything different is dishonesty on your part.
Right.. I stated that there was some evidence that it provided SOME protection.
Please show me were I have stated that the REASON we should wear masks.. was to protect the wearer. Show thats even CLOSE to my premise for supporting masking. Stop being dishonest.
AS far as misinterpreting the results?
Lets see what I said:
You liar.. there it is. I never "misinterpreted the danish study... ".. I pointed out that it the research didn't find a statistically significant effect.
So lie again and tell me I said that it found it was significant!!!
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Stop lying.
Well as a reality checker I expose dubious claims as incredible. If you stop pretending there is no convincing evidence to disprove what I have stating here all along than I will stop pointing out you are erroneously still pretending flimsy cloth face masks and paper surgical masks protect the person wearing it from getting infected with the Wuhan virus.
Wrong it is a dubious benefit of wearing flimsy face masks.
That is pretty amusing comment coming from someone who seems incapable of critically assessing the scientific evidence. It is called projection.
Because you didn;t post me contradicting myself. I explained that.How is my posting your words that contradict what you have and continue to claim is somehow now proof of me lying? You keep trying to pretend wearing flimsy face masks protects the wearer, but there remains no convincing evidence that face masks actually prevent people from catching the Wuhan virus. I have said all along that the best evidence to date suggests the person wearing a flimsy cloth and even paper surgical masks gets very little or no protection from catching the Wuhan virus by wearing such masks.
There is even less quality scientific evidence that flimsy face masks protect people near you from contagion if you happen to be obviously infected with SARS-CoV2. We know the Wuhan virus, like the flu and other respiratory virus, are primarily spread by microscopic aerosol particles that easy pass through these masks as well as out the top and sides through gaps.
Dude.. "defies common sense"? You don;t seem to have a lick of common sense.Yet you proclaim such flimsy face masks are effective for preventing aerosols from being expelled from an infected person even though those same flimsy face masks are useless or nearly so for preventing those same aerosols from going through and around those same masks. That defies common sense and yet you vehemently argue no RCTs can even be ethically done on the efficacy flimsy face masks for source control. Hummmm, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Well clearly you did contradict yourself. If you claim over and over that there is evidence face masks offer some protection to the wearer and claim you never once claimed that then you are contradicting yourself. You do agree I did not alter your words, right? So I will leave it to others to determine whether or not you contradicted yourself.Because you didn;t post me contradicting myself. I explained that.
Okay, so that is pretty much what I have said all along. You do realize your "parrot" was also misled into believing you believed flimsy face masks protect the wearer don't you? Or do you think he came up with that all on his own?No.. I don;t keep trying to pretend that flimsy face masks protect the wearer. THAT A LIE on your part.
I have said that there is some evidence that masks MAY offer SOME protection.. but the research data has not shown a statistically significant protective effect in the research I have read.
Well I have not seen any excellent scientific evidence that flimsy cloth face masks are effective for preventing someone with asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infection from transferring that infection to others. Certainly if they are coughing and sneezing and do so into the mask it will stop large droplets that may offer some protection to those around the symptomatic COVID-19 patient. I can imagine many would not want to wear the same masks all day if they are coughing and/or sneezing into it many times. Give me what you consider the best quality (or most excellent) study you believe proves beyond a reasonable doubt cloth face masks are effective for source control of asymptomatic people with a proven SARS-CoV2 infection? I'll be happy to take a closer look at and tell you why or why not it is should be considered sufficient evidence to guide public mandates to wear such masks.The reality is that there is EXCELLENT scientific evidence that masks reduce the chances of the infection spreading. I.E. that masks work as source control
A plethora of good scientific evidence has been presented to you.. and you ignore it... because of course you cannot refute it..
Your lame attempt to refute it has been "but but but No RCT".
Wrong. I explained why the observational data from many studies that all show smoking is strongly correlated with the development of lung CA when coupled with a lot of other research including RCT in animals exposed to tobacco smoke that together prove beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking and even second hand smoke promotes or causes lung cancer.But ooops... now you have had to admit that you believe that smoking causes lung cancer... even though...that information is based on OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES.. Sorry dude.. but you just fail.
The government mandates allow for any old type of face covering including bandanas, gators, and flimsy single layer cloth face masks. Are they all effective or is it just some type of face masks that are likely to be effective for source control?We know that the covid virus is spread by both large and small respiratory droplets that contain larger amounts of virus. and are often stopped by two layers of cotton mask or a surgical mask. .and by aerosoled viral particles that are also often stopped by a surgical mask/two layers of cotton mask or redirected up and or back from the infected person.. reducing the area of infection around them.
Which is why.. a plethora of good observational studies have shown that masks are a significant factor in source control.
Actually a lot of what was once common sense or widely held beliefs turned out to not be at odds with objective reality.Dude.. "defies common sense"? You don;t seem to have a lick of common sense.
Right, but many flimsy face masks and even paper surgical face masks my redirect aerosols but not stop many. As such they may reduce the risk of contagion to someone sitting across the table from an infected, but actually increase the risk to the person sitting next to you. At sporting events and in movie theatres that might even be a net negative.You do realize that when an infected person..breathes out.. if their nose and mouth are covered by the mask.. that mask will stop a percentage of the respiratory droplets that contain virus as well as redirect and partially stop the aerosoled viral particles.. thus reducing the chances of a person around the infected person getting enough viral load to overwhelm their immune system.
The government mandates allow for any old type of face covering including bandanas, gators, and flimsy single layer cloth face masks. Are they all effective or is it just some type of face masks that are likely to be effective for source control?
Actually a lot of what was once common sense or widely held beliefs turned out to not be at odds with objective reality.
Right, but many flimsy face masks and even paper surgical face masks my redirect aerosols but not stop many. As such they may reduce the risk of contagion to someone sitting across the table from an infected, but actually increase the risk to the person sitting next to you. At sporting events and in movie theatres that might even be a net negative.
Well clearly you did contradict yourself. If you claim over and over that there is evidence face masks offer some protection to the wearer and claim you never once claimed that then you are contradicting yourself. You do agree I did not alter your words, right? So I will leave it to others to determine whether or not you contradicted yourself.
Okay, so that is pretty much what I have said all along. You do realize your "parrot" was also misled into believing you believed flimsy face masks protect the wearer don't you? Or do you think he came up with that all on his own?
Well I have not seen any excellent scientific evidence that flimsy cloth face masks are effective for preventing someone with asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infection from transferring that infection to others. Certainly if they are coughing and sneezing and do so into the mask it will stop large droplets that may offer some protection to those around the symptomatic COVID-19 patient. I can imagine many would not want to wear the same masks all day if they are coughing and/or sneezing into it many times. Give me what you consider the best quality (or most excellent) study you believe proves beyond a reasonable doubt cloth face masks are effective for source control of asymptomatic people with a proven SARS-CoV2 infection? I'll be happy to take a closer look at and tell you why or why not it is should be considered sufficient evidence to guide public mandates to wear such masks.
Wrong. I explained why the observational data from many studies that all show smoking is strongly correlated with the development of lung CA when coupled with a lot of other research including RCT in animals exposed to tobacco smoke that together prove beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking and even second hand smoke promotes or causes lung cancer.
Poli wants a cracker? Not feeding any trolls or parrots today.Those who are not liars/disinformation agents have maintained the reason for the mask mandate is to protect others from the WEARER.
Citing sources that state a level of protection for the WEARER does not change that fact.
There is no contradiction.
Stop acting stupid.
Poli wants a cracker? Not feeding any trolls or parrots today.
Yawn.Well clearly you did contradict yourself. If you claim over and over that there is evidence face masks offer some protection to the wearer and claim you never once claimed that then you are contradicting yourself. You do agree I did not alter your words, right? So I will leave it to others to determine whether or not you contradicted yourself.
Okay, so that is pretty much what I have said all along. You do realize your "parrot" was also misled into believing you believed flimsy face masks protect the wearer don't you? Or do you think he came up with that all on his own?
Well I have not seen any excellent scientific evidence that flimsy cloth face masks are effective for preventing someone with asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infection from transferring that infection to others. Certainly if they are coughing and sneezing and do so into the mask it will stop large droplets that may offer some protection to those around the symptomatic COVID-19 patient. I can imagine many would not want to wear the same masks all day if they are coughing and/or sneezing into it many times. Give me what you consider the best quality (or most excellent) study you believe proves beyond a reasonable doubt cloth face masks are effective for source control of asymptomatic people with a proven SARS-CoV2 infection? I'll be happy to take a closer look at and tell you why or why not it is should be considered sufficient evidence to guide public mandates to wear such masks.
Wrong. I explained why the observational data from many studies that all show smoking is strongly correlated with the development of lung CA when coupled with a lot of other research including RCT in animals exposed to tobacco smoke that together prove beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking and even second hand smoke promotes or causes lung cancer.
1. Yes..the government mandates do allow for any old mask.The government mandates allow for any old type of face covering including bandanas, gators, and flimsy single layer cloth face masks. Are they all effective or is it just some type of face masks that are likely to be effective for source control?
Actually a lot of what was once common sense or widely held beliefs turned out to not be at odds with objective reality.
Right, but many flimsy face masks and even paper surgical face masks my redirect aerosols but not stop many. As such they may reduce the risk of contagion to someone sitting across the table from an infected, but actually increase the risk to the person sitting next to you. At sporting events and in movie theatres that might even be a net negative.
Actually there are no RCT showing which masks may and which masks may not provide even a modicum of source control protection. This is especially true if the masks wearer has no symptoms of covid and is neither coughing or sneezing or yelling/singing.1. Yes..the government mandates do allow for any old mask.
So when a plethora of studies on a population using just any old mask..show they work as source control? That's powerful evidence that masks work.
I do not doubt that some face masks and other PPF can markedly reduce the risk of an infected wearer from spreading the virus to others. This is clearly important in hospitals and nursing homes but not very important in elementary schools and on college campuses. The fact that masks and PPE likely vary from largely effective to nearly or completely useless for source control is also a very good reason to not mandate any old mask as acceptable is it not? It seems at the very least we need RCT on different types of masks (and other PPE) to determine what their relative efficacy is for protecting the wearer and as source control.It's common sense that varying types of masks have different effectiveness..and if a population has less effective or non effective masks mixed in with effective masks..that is more likely to reduce the chance of finding a statistically significant effect. So if you still find one..its very powerful evidence masks work .
That is a lie. I never claimed that. Unlike your easily falsified claim [repeated over and over again here] there remains no quality credible evidence flimsy face masks protect the wearer. But will you be able to post my words proving I claimed face masks are equally efficacious for protecting the wearer and for source control? Nope. Why? Because you are lying about what I posted and posted your own words to prove you did indeed claim something you falsely claimed you never did claim. CHECKMATE mon Capitaine.2. Exactly. You thought it was " common sense" that a mask covering the mouth and nose should offer the same protection whether it protected the wearer from getting an infection or prevents the wearer from giving an infection
That is speculation about a plausible mechanism that may explain in part why flimsy face masks are likely ineffective for protecting the mask wearer and not objective reality established by a well designed RCT.I provided the objective reality that they are different since the mucosa of the eyes are exposed and virus lands on the outside of the mask and if the wearer hands the mask incorecctly..they can infect themselves.
So yes..your view was disproved by objective reality.
Calling people who disagree with you a ridiculous dude is an ad hominem insult. Are you trying to get banned?3. Um no you ridiculous dude.
That is not a cogent rebuttal to what I stated. Here is what I stated: "Right, but many flimsy face masks and even paper surgical face masks my redirect aerosols but not stop many. As such they may reduce the risk of contagion to someone sitting across the table from an infected, but actually increase the risk to the person sitting next to you. At sporting events and in movie theatres that might even be a net negative." RCBy stopping the larger respiratory droplets..and by redirecting the aerosols up and back.. the masks are more important in protecting you from someone closer than six feet..since they reduce the area of infection around the person compared to an unmasked person sitting next to you spewing respiratory droplets loaded with virus and projecting volumes of aerosoled virus all around them.
Dude just admit to yourself you are wrong.
Actually there are no RCT showing which masks may and which masks may not provide even a modicum of source control protection. This is especially true if the masks wearer has no symptoms of covid and is neither coughing or sneezing or yelling/singing.
I do not doubt that some face masks and other PPF can markedly reduce the risk of an infected wearer from spreading the virus to others. This is clearly important in hospitals and nursing homes but not very important in elementary schools and on college campuses. The fact that masks and PPE likely vary from largely effective to nearly or completely useless for source control is also a very good reason to not mandate any old mask as acceptable is it not? It seems at the very least we need RCT on different types of masks (and other PPE) to determine what their relative efficacy is for protecting the wearer and as source control.
That is a lie. I never claimed that. Unlike your easily falsified claim [repeated over and over again here] there remains no quality credible evidence flimsy face masks protect the wearer. But will you be able to post my words proving I claimed face masks are equally efficacious for protecting the wearer and for source control? Nope. Why? Because you are lying about what I posted and posted your own words to prove you did indeed claim something you falsely claimed you never did claim. CHECKMATE mon Capitaine.
That is speculation about a plausible mechanism that may explain in part why flimsy face masks are likely ineffective for protecting the mask wearer and not objective reality established by a well designed RCT.
Calling people who disagree with you a ridiculous dude is an ad hominem insult. Are you trying to get banned?
That is not a cogent rebuttal to what I stated. Here is what I stated: "Right, but many flimsy face masks and even paper surgical face masks my redirect aerosols but not stop many. As such they may reduce the risk of contagion to someone sitting across the table from an infected, but actually increase the risk to the person sitting next to you. At sporting events and in movie theatres that might even be a net negative." RC
1. Yep. For the ethical reasons and logistical reasons listed.Actually there are no RCT showing which masks may and which masks may not provide even a modicum of source control protection. This is especially true if the masks wearer has no symptoms of covid and is neither coughing or sneezing or yelling/singing.
I do not doubt that some face masks and other PPF can markedly reduce the risk of an infected wearer from spreading the virus to others. This is clearly important in hospitals and nursing homes but not very important in elementary schools and on college campuses. The fact that masks and PPE likely vary from largely effective to nearly or completely useless for source control is also a very good reason to not mandate any old mask as acceptable is it not? It seems at the very least we need RCT on different types of masks (and other PPE) to determine what their relative efficacy is for protecting the wearer and as source control.
That is a lie. I never claimed that. Unlike your easily falsified claim [repeated over and over again here] there remains no quality credible evidence flimsy face masks protect the wearer. But will you be able to post my words proving I claimed face masks are equally efficacious for protecting the wearer and for source control? Nope. Why? Because you are lying about what I posted and posted your own words to prove you did indeed claim something you falsely claimed you never did claim. CHECKMATE mon Capitaine.
That is speculation about a plausible mechanism that may explain in part why flimsy face masks are likely ineffective for protecting the mask wearer and not objective reality established by a well designed RCT.
Calling people who disagree with you a ridiculous dude is an ad hominem insult. Are you trying to get banned?
That is not a cogent rebuttal to what I stated. Here is what I stated: "Right, but many flimsy face masks and even paper surgical face masks my redirect aerosols but not stop many. As such they may reduce the risk of contagion to someone sitting across the table from an infected, but actually increase the risk to the person sitting next to you. At sporting events and in movie theatres that might even be a net negative." RC
1. Yep. For the ethical reasons and logistical reasons listed.
There is evidence however from studies of the effect of various mask designs on stopping particles. If there wasn't evidence..why would you think n95 masks are better than those " flimsy masks".
Without an rct...why reality Checker do you think there is a difference? Shouldn't you be assuming that those " flimsy cotton masks " are just as effective as an n95.?
Hoisted by your own Petard again.
2. Actually since it's community spread that puts people in the hospital and it's community spread that introduces the virus into nursing homes..its exactly why there should be mask wearing in the community. In addition it's community spread that helps create variants that can be more infectious and or deadly.
3. Of course you stated " if a mask cannot stop a virus from infecting the wearer..its common sense then it can't protect the others from the wearer" ( paraphrased)
I pointed out the objective reality that they are two very different scenarios.
In one ..the mask covers the mouth and nose reducing the amount t of virus emitted.
In the other.. the mask covers only the mouth and nose but doesn't cover the mucosa of the eyes etc.
Dude ..your mistake..own it.
4. If course it's a cogent rebuttal. How the heck can you logically claim its safer to sit next to an infected person not wearing a mask.
And sitting next to a person who is wearing a mask which is preventing the respiratory droplets containg the virus from being spewed and is trapping some of the aerosoled virus and is projecting the other aerosoled virus up and away from the person and backwards reducing the size of the bubble of infection around them?
Please explain your logic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?