[W:4,590] Study Finds Face Masks Didn’t Slow Spread Of Covid-19

[RealityChecker]

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".

Some masks clearly stop more of the tiny aerosols carrying respiratory virus that most research suggests are largely responsible for spreading infections. Stopping 80 to 100% would likely make a big differences whereas stopping maybe 10 to 20% (which we see with paper surgical masks (and even less for the flimsiest cloth masks probably makes little or no difference.

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.

Don't be absurd. Is it not important for people to know the relative efficacy of different types of face masks for preventing the spread of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV2 and the flu? Would the FDA allow a drug on the market before it was proven to be reasonably safe and effective? Are you arguing the FDA should just allow the marketing of drugs to treat and prevent disease without RCTS?!?!?

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.

Thousands of nursing home residents die from the flu and over the past 2 years even more are dying from COVID. Seems we ought find out more precisely the relative efficacy of various types of face masks and other PPE. I would think clinicians would want more accurate information about the efficacy of different types of face masks for controlling the spread of respiratory viruses rather than having some generic any old mask will do mandate.

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.

Still can't find my words and I do not trust your paraphrasing as you generally misconstrue my words. If the face masks is doing little to stop aerosols it is unlikely to make much difference except perhaps up close talking face to face where I can see even flimsy face masks likely having some effect because they will stop large droplets that no doubt also spread the virus.

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.

Because a flimsy face will re-direct more droplets to the side rather then forward.

 

[Fledermaus]

@RealityChecker

Isn't it funny how the COVID protocols have resulted in decreased influenza during the time of COVID.

 

[VySky]

@RealityChecker

Isn't it funny how the COVID protocols have resulted in decreased influenza during the time of COVID.

Do what? I’d rather catch the flu (which I never do) than to jump through Covid hoops.

 

[Fledermaus]

Do what? I’d rather catch the flu (which I never do) than to jump through Covid hoops.

We agree COVID is far more fatal than influenza.

 

[jaeger19]

Some masks clearly stop more of the tiny aerosols carrying respiratory virus that most research suggests are largely responsible for spreading infections. Stopping 80 to 100% would likely make a big differences whereas stopping maybe 10 to 20% (which we see with paper surgical masks (and even less for the flimsiest cloth masks probably makes little or no difference.

Don't be absurd. Is it not important for people to know the relative efficacy of different types of face masks for preventing the spread of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV2 and the flu? Would the FDA allow a drug on the market before it was proven to be reasonably safe and effective? Are you arguing the FDA should just allow the marketing of drugs to treat and prevent disease without RCTS?!?!?

Thousands of nursing home residents die from the flu and over the past 2 years even more are dying from COVID. Seems we ought find out more precisely the relative efficacy of various types of face masks and other PPE. I would think clinicians would want more accurate information about the efficacy of different types of face masks for controlling the spread of respiratory viruses rather than having some generic any old mask will do mandate.

Still can't find my words and I do not trust your paraphrasing as you generally misconstrue my words. If the face masks is doing little to stop aerosols it is unlikely to make much difference except perhaps up close talking face to face where I can see even flimsy face masks likely having some effect because they will stop large droplets that no doubt also spread the virus.

Because a flimsy face will re-direct more droplets to the side rather then forward.

1. Studies show cloth masks and surgical masks are effective in reducing transmission. End of story.
2. Masks are proven safe..and effective for source control.
We already know which masks are better at stopping transmission..
People can choose the added expense if they like.
3. Yeah..you still don't get the difference between masks for protecting the wearer and masks for source control.
Mask alone don't work well for protection regardless of type if the mucosa of the eyes are exposed or the mask is not handled properly.
Masks work for source control regardless of whether the masks are handled properly..or the mucosa of the eyes are exposed.

 

[RealityChecker]

1. Studies show cloth masks and surgical masks are effective in reducing transmission. End of story.

Some are and some are useless or very close to it for preventing the wearer from catching SARS-CoV2.

2. Masks are proven safe..and effective for source control.

Even if true forcing people to wear a mask that does little or nothing for them in order to protect other people is on the path to totalitarianism and a serious breach of individual liberty.

We already know which masks are better at stopping transmission..
People can choose the added expense if they like.

Why should people be allowed to put others at risk by choosing to wear some flimsy mask? Seems you are being illogical arguing people should be required to do things to protect others but then saying its okay if what they wear is far less effective than what is available.

3. Yeah..you still don't get the difference between masks for protecting the wearer and masks for source control.
Mask alone don't work well for protection regardless of type if the mucosa of the eyes are exposed or the mask is not handled properly.
Masks work for source control regardless of whether the masks are handled properly..or the mucosa of the eyes are exposed.

Maybe we need to criminalize improper handling of masks and people choosing to wear masks that are far less effective than what is available to reduce the spread of the Wuhan virus? Do you think Austria is being sufficiently authoritarian? More here:

"Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg on Sunday announced the country is placing millions of people who aren’t fully vaccinated for COVID-19 on lockdown starting Monday.

About 65 percent of the Central European nation’s population is vaccinated, according to government data. Under the measures revealed on Sunday, unvaccinated people are ordered to stay at home except for limited reasons.

The rules, the government said, will be enforced by police officers who will be out on the streets carrying out spot-checks on people who are in public. Unvaccinated people are already excluded from entertainment venues, bars, restaurants, and similar venues and businesses.

“We are not taking this step lightly but it is necessary,” Schallenberg told a news conference announcing the new measures.

Schallenberg admitted that the government essentially “told one-third of the population: you will not leave your apartment any more apart from for certain reasons. That is a massive reduction in contacts between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.”

Now, unvaccinated people can only leave their homes for a limited number of reasons like going to work or shopping for essentials. It’s not clear how that would be enforced. Austria’s lockdown does not apply to the under-12s, to people who have recently recovered from COVID-19, and will last 10 days, Health Minister Wolfgang Mueckstein said.

On Friday, Schallenberg alleged that the country’s COVID-19 vaccination is “shamefully low” and indicated the government should give the “green light” for the sweeping restrictions over the weekend. To Be Continued:

 

[RealityChecker]

According to video footage posted online, crowds of people were seen demonstrating against the vaccine mandate in Salzburg and other Austrian cities, criticizing the “lying media” on Saturday. More protests occurred Sunday, footage shows.

Interior Minister Karl Nehammer said there will be thorough police checks and fines of up to 1,450 euros ($1,660) for breaches, and all interactions with the police will include checking people’s vaccination status. The move drew considerable condemnation online, with some commentators noting that it would severely limit freedom of movement for potentially millions of people.

“As of tomorrow, every citizen, every person who lives in Austria must be aware that they can be checked by the police,” Nehammer told the news conference.

Showing an official COVID-19 pass proving that you have been vaccinated, recovered from COVID-19, or recently tested has been required for months in various places including restaurants, theaters, cafes, and hairdressers.

In nearby Germany, despite having its “2G” vaccine pass system in place for months now, COVID-19 cases surged to their highest levels last week. More than 50,000 cases were confirmed by health officials.

German Chancellor-in-waiting Olaf Scholz told Parliament on Thursday that new measures are needed “to get through this winter … we must shelter our country from the winter.” Also, government spokesman Steffen Seibert was quoted by VOA News as saying that the virus is “spreading dramatically” and asserted that a “quick and unified response” was needed.

Maybe we should just take all those evil folks refusing to get vaccinated (even if they have naturally acquired active immunity) and send them off to concentration camps?

 

[Fledermaus]

Some are and some are useless or very close to it for preventing the wearer from catching SARS-CoV2.

Even if true forcing people to wear a mask that does little or nothing for them in order to protect other people is on the path to totalitarianism and a serious breach of individual liberty.

Why should people be allowed to put others at risk by choosing to wear some flimsy mask? Seems you are being illogical arguing people should be required to do things to protect others but then saying its okay if what they wear is far less effective than what is available.

Maybe we need to criminalize improper handling of masks and people choosing to wear masks that are far less effective than what is available to reduce the spread of the Wuhan virus? Do you think Austria is being sufficiently authoritarian? More here:

"Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg on Sunday announced the country is placing millions of people who aren’t fully vaccinated for COVID-19 on lockdown starting Monday.

About 65 percent of the Central European nation’s population is vaccinated, according to government data. Under the measures revealed on Sunday, unvaccinated people are ordered to stay at home except for limited reasons.

The rules, the government said, will be enforced by police officers who will be out on the streets carrying out spot-checks on people who are in public. Unvaccinated people are already excluded from entertainment venues, bars, restaurants, and similar venues and businesses.

“We are not taking this step lightly but it is necessary,” Schallenberg told a news conference announcing the new measures.

Schallenberg admitted that the government essentially “told one-third of the population: you will not leave your apartment any more apart from for certain reasons. That is a massive reduction in contacts between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.”

Now, unvaccinated people can only leave their homes for a limited number of reasons like going to work or shopping for essentials. It’s not clear how that would be enforced. Austria’s lockdown does not apply to the under-12s, to people who have recently recovered from COVID-19, and will last 10 days, Health Minister Wolfgang Mueckstein said.

On Friday, Schallenberg alleged that the country’s COVID-19 vaccination is “shamefully low” and indicated the government should give the “green light” for the sweeping restrictions over the weekend. To Be Continued:

1. Wear a mask where it is required or warranted. It helps stop the transmission of COVID (among other things)
2. Get vaccinated
3. Practice social distancing
4. Observe basic hygiene

And in addition.

1. Cry less
2. Stop acting as if you have a right to infect
3. Stop spreading medical disinformation.

 

[Fledermaus]

According to video footage posted online, crowds of people were seen demonstrating against the vaccine mandate in Salzburg and other Austrian cities, criticizing the “lying media” on Saturday. More protests occurred Sunday, footage shows.

Interior Minister Karl Nehammer said there will be thorough police checks and fines of up to 1,450 euros ($1,660) for breaches, and all interactions with the police will include checking people’s vaccination status. The move drew considerable condemnation online, with some commentators noting that it would severely limit freedom of movement for potentially millions of people.

“As of tomorrow, every citizen, every person who lives in Austria must be aware that they can be checked by the police,” Nehammer told the news conference.

Showing an official COVID-19 pass proving that you have been vaccinated, recovered from COVID-19, or recently tested has been required for months in various places including restaurants, theaters, cafes, and hairdressers.

In nearby Germany, despite having its “2G” vaccine pass system in place for months now, COVID-19 cases surged to their highest levels last week. More than 50,000 cases were confirmed by health officials.

German Chancellor-in-waiting Olaf Scholz told Parliament on Thursday that new measures are needed “to get through this winter … we must shelter our country from the winter.” Also, government spokesman Steffen Seibert was quoted by VOA News as saying that the virus is “spreading dramatically” and asserted that a “quick and unified response” was needed.

Maybe we should just take all those evil folks refusing to get vaccinated (even if they have naturally acquired active immunity) and send them off to concentration camps?

Antivaxxers gonna antivaxx.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

 

[RealityChecker]

Antivaxxers gonna antivaxx.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

Perhaps we should just round them all up and bake them in ovens to make sure they do not put others at risk of COVID?

 

[Fledermaus]

Perhaps we should just round them all up and bake them in ovens to make sure they do not put others at risk of COVID?

Stupid is as Stupid says.....

1. Wear a mask where it is required or warranted. It helps stop the transmission of COVID (among other things)
2. Get vaccinated
3. Practice social distancing
4. Observe basic hygiene

And in addition.

1. Cry less
2. Stop acting as if you have a right to infect
3. Stop spreading medical disinformation.

 

[RealityChecker]

1. Wear a mask where it is required or warranted. It helps stop the transmission of COVID (among other things)
2. Get vaccinated
3. Practice social distancing
4. Observe basic hygiene

And in addition.

1. Cry less

Not crying at all

2. Stop acting as if you have a right to infect

Am I still free to spread the flu around?

3. Stop spreading medical disinformation.

What have I posted that was disinformation in your expert opinion?.

 

[Fledermaus]

Not crying at all

Am I still free to spread the flu around?

What have I posted that was disinformation in your expert opinion?.

"Masks don't work"

 

[Mika-El]

Not crying at all

Am I still free to spread the flu around?

What have I posted that was disinformation in your expert opinion?.

I am not sure what is wrong with you. What made you think you can spread any contagious illness even the flu deliberately? If you go up to someone and spit in their face or sneeze on them or wipe your bodily fluid on them or touch them its called a battery. That might make you liable either criminally or civilly. Do I really need to tell you that legally?

More to the point, are you that selfish and self entitled, you think you should be able to walk around in public and there are no consequences for your actions when it comes to exposing others to possible serious illness and infections?

What are you saying, you should be able to walk up to an eldery person and breath on them and touch them, same with a baby?

Are you that without any common sense?

This is not about you wand what you are free to do. This is about US not you. Therein is your problem. Something in your cognitive process can't switch from me to us. You can reference things in regards to your needs, but the moment anyone asks you to consider your actions impact on others, your cognitive processing shuts down. Its called narcissism or Trumpism.

Are you really that self centered and blind to anyone else's needs? Did Trump teach you that this was ok or did someone else? Who? Would you have me believe your parents did? Would you have me believe if your parents get to a certain age and you know they are vulnerable to the flu you would deliberately refuse to take precautions when you visit them? Is that what they taught you? I do not mean to get personal but that is the implication of what you said and I for one can not believe anyone taught you to only think of yourself. I think you came to that conclusion and I am curious why. I am challenging your me first cognitive process and yes it becomes personal because you not I are making it personal referring to this issue as if its about YOU.

Tell me what next? Finish your question. Will you ask if you are free to spread AIDS, other std's, tuberculosis, rabies or just the flu? You want to hide this behind a conspiracy about Covid 19, or do you want to finish this?

Your question makes no sense. You know damn well any reckless behaviour on your part then endangers another could cause medical and legal conseqiences to you and others. Should you blow your cigarette smoke in my face? Where do you want to go with this argument?



You emulate and imitate the rantings of Donald Trump whose sole legacy in his 4 years in office was to tell everyone to phack off if the didn't get whatever he wanted in the moment,.

That's quite a message you have been inspired by. Yah I know you call yourself a patriot standing up for America.

Yah that is what democracy is about, self-centered individuals running around deliberately infecting others with illnesses they could have prevented. That's an inspiring vision of democracy/

 

[RealityChecker]

I am not sure what is wrong with you. What made you think you can spread any contagious illness even the flu deliberately? If you go up to someone and spit in their face or sneeze on them or wipe your bodily fluid on them or touch them its called a battery. That might make you liable either criminally or civilly. Do I really need to tell you that legally? More to the point, are you that selfish and self entitled, you think you should be able to walk around in public and there are no consequences for your actions when it comes to exposing others to possible serious illness and infections? What are you saying, you should be able to walk up to an eldery person and breath on them and touch them, same with a baby? Are you that without any common sense?

You seem very confused. The topic here is about the efficacy of face masks and whether or not the government should be forcing people to wear largely useless flimsy face masks in public.

"Cloth masks are of little use against COVID-19, according to a recently published analysis. Federal health authorities and a slew of jurisdictions require or recommend wearing masks as a way to limit spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. But a trio of researchers pored over the studies often cited by the officials and found they were poorly designed and offered scant evidence supporting mask usage. Many of the studies are observational, opening them up to confounding variables, the researchers said in their analysis (pdf), which was published on Nov. 8 by the Cato Institute.

Of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing mask effectiveness to controls with no masks, 14 failed to find a statistically significant benefit, the researchers said. And of 16 quantitative meta-analyses, half showed weak evidence of mask effectiveness while the others were “were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks,” they added.
“The biggest takeaway is that more than 100 years of attempts to prove that masks are beneficial has produced a large volume of mostly low-quality evidence that has generally failed to demonstrate their value in most settings,” Dr. Jonathan Darrow, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Officials mulling mask recommendations should turn their attention to interventions with larger and more certain benefits, such as vaccines. Based on the evidence currently available, masks are mostly a distraction from the important work of promoting the public health,” he added.

One widely-cited study (pdf) by mask proponents, of rural villages in Bangladesh, found that surgical masks appeared to be marginally effective in reducing symptomatic COVID-19 but that cloth masks did not, Darrow and his colleagues noted. The other real-world randomized controlled trial examining mask effectiveness, conducted in Denmark, did not find a statistically significant difference in infections between the masked and unmasked groups.

“The remainder of the available clinical evidence is primarily limited to non-randomized observational data, which are subject to confounding,” the researchers said, including accounting for other differences in behavior among those who don’t wear masks.

 

[Fledermaus]

You seem very confused. The topic here is about the efficacy of face masks and whether or not the government should be forcing people to wear largely useless flimsy face masks in public.

"Cloth masks are of little use against COVID-19, according to a recently published analysis. Federal health authorities and a slew of jurisdictions require or recommend wearing masks as a way to limit spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. But a trio of researchers pored over the studies often cited by the officials and found they were poorly designed and offered scant evidence supporting mask usage. Many of the studies are observational, opening them up to confounding variables, the researchers said in their analysis (pdf), which was published on Nov. 8 by the Cato Institute.

Of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing mask effectiveness to controls with no masks, 14 failed to find a statistically significant benefit, the researchers said. And of 16 quantitative meta-analyses, half showed weak evidence of mask effectiveness while the others were “were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks,” they added.
“The biggest takeaway is that more than 100 years of attempts to prove that masks are beneficial has produced a large volume of mostly low-quality evidence that has generally failed to demonstrate their value in most settings,” Dr. Jonathan Darrow, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Officials mulling mask recommendations should turn their attention to interventions with larger and more certain benefits, such as vaccines. Based on the evidence currently available, masks are mostly a distraction from the important work of promoting the public health,” he added.

One widely-cited study (pdf) by mask proponents, of rural villages in Bangladesh, found that surgical masks appeared to be marginally effective in reducing symptomatic COVID-19 but that cloth masks did not, Darrow and his colleagues noted. The other real-world randomized controlled trial examining mask effectiveness, conducted in Denmark, did not find a statistically significant difference in infections between the masked and unmasked groups.

“The remainder of the available clinical evidence is primarily limited to non-randomized observational data, which are subject to confounding,” the researchers said, including accounting for other differences in behavior among those who don’t wear masks.

Masks have been shown to reduce the transfer of COVID....

 

[RealityChecker]

Little Evidence Supports Use of Cloth Masks to Limit Spread of Coronavirus: Analysis​

BY ZACHARY STIEBER November 15, 2021 Updated: November 15, 2021

“The remainder of the available clinical evidence is primarily limited to non-randomized observational data, which are subject to confounding,” the researchers said, including accounting for other differences in behavior among those who don’t wear masks.
They did say that there is evidence masks reduce droplet dispersion, though cloth masks are unlikely to capture the particles even if worn properly.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers cannot wait for higher-quality evidence to support masking, but from an ethical standpoint, they should “refrain from portraying the evidence as stronger than it actually is,” the researchers concluded.
COVID-19 is the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. The CCP virus is also known as the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2.
Some outside experts’ views align with the researchers, including Dr. Martin Kulldorff, senior scientific director of the Brownstone Institute.
“The truth is that there has been only two randomized trials of masks for COVID. One was in Denmark, which showed that they might be slightly beneficial, they might be slightly harmful, we don’t really know—the confidence interval kind of crossed zero,” he said. “And then there was another study from Bangladesh where they randomized villagers to masks or no masks. And the efficacy of the masks was for reduction of COVID was something between zero and 18 percent. So either no effect or very minuscule effect.”
Some experts, though, say the existing evidence does support masking recommendations, and several reacted strongly to the new analysis.
The analysis drew some pushback, including from Kimberly Prather, director of the National Science Foundation Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment.
Prather noted on Twitter that researchers said masks reduce the amount of virus in the air and believed that ran counter to their conclusions.
Darrow responded by saying the amount of virus in the air was a surrogate, not a clinical endpoint.
“The amount of pathogen in air (to be inhaled) directly determines the dose. This is directly linked to risk,” Prather added. “Or can you explain how less virus in the air could be higher risk? It’s equivalent to saying that less pathogen in drinking water is higher risk so don’t filter water.”
“If the theory diverges from what you see in real life, which one do you believe?” Darrow said.

 

[Fledermaus]

Little Evidence Supports Use of Cloth Masks to Limit Spread of Coronavirus: Analysis​

BY ZACHARY STIEBER November 15, 2021 Updated: November 15, 2021

“The remainder of the available clinical evidence is primarily limited to non-randomized observational data, which are subject to confounding,” the researchers said, including accounting for other differences in behavior among those who don’t wear masks.
They did say that there is evidence masks reduce droplet dispersion, though cloth masks are unlikely to capture the particles even if worn properly.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers cannot wait for higher-quality evidence to support masking, but from an ethical standpoint, they should “refrain from portraying the evidence as stronger than it actually is,” the researchers concluded.
COVID-19 is the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. The CCP virus is also known as the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2.
Some outside experts’ views align with the researchers, including Dr. Martin Kulldorff, senior scientific director of the Brownstone Institute.
“The truth is that there has been only two randomized trials of masks for COVID. One was in Denmark, which showed that they might be slightly beneficial, they might be slightly harmful, we don’t really know—the confidence interval kind of crossed zero,” he said. “And then there was another study from Bangladesh where they randomized villagers to masks or no masks. And the efficacy of the masks was for reduction of COVID was something between zero and 18 percent. So either no effect or very minuscule effect.”
Some experts, though, say the existing evidence does support masking recommendations, and several reacted strongly to the new analysis.
The analysis drew some pushback, including from Kimberly Prather, director of the National Science Foundation Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment.
Prather noted on Twitter that researchers said masks reduce the amount of virus in the air and believed that ran counter to their conclusions.
Darrow responded by saying the amount of virus in the air was a surrogate, not a clinical endpoint.
“The amount of pathogen in air (to be inhaled) directly determines the dose. This is directly linked to risk,” Prather added. “Or can you explain how less virus in the air could be higher risk? It’s equivalent to saying that less pathogen in drinking water is higher risk so don’t filter water.”
“If the theory diverges from what you see in real life, which one do you believe?” Darrow said.

The Epoch times.

Choice for medical information for professionals world wide!

Masks have been shown to slow the transfer of COVID.

 

[VySky]

The Epoch times.

Choice for medical information for professionals world wide!

Masks have been shown to slow the transfer of COVID.

But worth it. Time to get back to normal. And that includes people who die everyday. Let’s socially commit suicide so the very few can not all die at once. No thanks. Ditch the mask

 

[RealityChecker]

The Epoch times.

Choice for medical information for professionals world wide!

Masks have been shown to slow the transfer of COVID.

If you cannot attack the messenger then attack the source. The author of the article is quoting researchers who did the extensive review. Are you claiming the expert researchers are being misquoted? If so prove it. If not you have no rebuttal.

 

[Fledermaus]

But worth it. Time to get back to normal. And that includes people who die everyday. Let’s socially commit suicide so the very few can not all die at once. No thanks. Ditch the mask

Stupid idea.

Please stop the stupid.

 

[Fledermaus]

If you cannot attack the messenger then attack the source. The author of the article is quoting researchers who did the extensive review. Are you claiming the expert researchers are being misquoted? If so prove it. If not you have no rebuttal.

The message is shit as is the source.

 

[RealityChecker]

The message is shit as is the source.

Well that is not a rebuttal and again all you do is attack the source. Tell us what is wrong about this analysis discussed and linked to in the Epoch Times article?

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-11/working-paper-64.pdf

 

[Fledermaus]

Well that is not a rebuttal and again all you do is attack the source. Tell us what is wrong about this analysis discussed and linked to in the Epoch Times article?

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-11/working-paper-64.pdf

It is all the rebuttal antivaxxers deserve .

 

[jaeger19]

Some are and some are useless or very close to it for preventing the wearer from catching SARS-CoV2.

Which is they are not recommended solely for protection. Stop running with the goal posts...mask mandates are not to protect the wearer.

Even if true forcing people to wear a mask that does little or nothing for them in order to protect other people is on the path to totalitarianism and a serious breach of individual liberty.

No its not. Do you consider headlights, horns and working turn signals... which are all to protect other drivers when you are on a public road. to be "on the path of totalitarianism"? Come now. A "breath of individual liberty"... cripes.. look at you grasping.

When the infection is so rampant.. that people are not able to get their needed surgeries because of people who are infected? Then its an issue.
We have been over this.
Cripes.. you guys get all worked up over wearing a mask for an hour or two when you go shopping.. and then cheer restrictions on voting rights.. so that the government in charge can decide which citizens vote and which do not.... ! Sheesh. get a grip.

Why should people be allowed to put others at risk by choosing to wear some flimsy mask?

Because the flimsy mask offers more protection for others than nothing at all. Just like you need to have working lights on your car.. but you don;t have to have warning strobes etc.

Seems you are being illogical arguing people should be required to do things to protect others but then saying its okay if what they wear is far less effective than what is available.

No that is completely logical. Its called cost versus benefit.. risk vs benefit.. it recognizes the real world. Requiring people to wear a mask when out shopping in public is reasonable.
Requiring a person to don full PPE to go out to the grocery store is not. It does not fit the cost vs benefit ratio.
For example.. we require seatbelts on the driver because it helps them stay in control of the vehicle of they hit an object or swerve etc.
We do not expect then to wear a full face helmet, roll cages, and a 5 point harness.
I am sure that you would argue "but but if you require a seatbelt.. it means you plan to require a 5 point harness and bubble wrap the entire care"..
But frankly.. only you are that obsurd

Maybe we need to criminalize improper handling of masks and people choosing to wear masks that are far less effective than what is available to reduce the spread of the Wuhan virus?

No we don;t.

Do you think Austria is being sufficiently authoritarian? More here:

"Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg on Sunday announced the country is placing millions of people who aren’t fully vaccinated for COVID-19 on lockdown starting Monday.

I think its overkill. Unvaccinated were already prohibited from bars, entertainment venues. restaurants and similar venues and businesses.
I doubt these restrictions are going to seriously decrease covid from spreading.
However, it may increase compliance with vaccination which will eventually decrease covid from spreading.