Fu*%face Von Clownstick

[colb]

I say good f@cking luck. BLM and Antifa exposed an ugly truth to the rest of America: if enough people ignore the law, there is no law.
Might have trouble finding enough room in county lockup for, say, half the county.


Here are a few, though I’ve no doubt you’ll deem them “drivel” since their conclusions differ from your own:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/pdf/bmjopen-2014-006577.pdf

COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data

www.cidrap.umn.edu

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.

An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

swprs.org

Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles

Abstract. A shortage of disposable filtering facepiece respirators can be expected during a pandemic respiratory infection such as influenza A. Some individuals

academic.oup.com

@Bucknut That is four - not a dozen.

Is that one article really from 2014? You said *recent* articles. It is ...possible/certain... that scientific studies involving masks have progressed a bit since the pandemic began. The CDC changed its guidance concerning masks back in the early part of 2020. That means that a study from 2014 is unlikely to be relevant. You knew that when you posted it.

I'm noting a news perspective article from a .edu site, so that's not peer reviewed, right? You knew that was just a reporter and not a scientist when you posted it.

I'm noting a .org link, so that's not peer reviewed either, right? ...You knew that.

I'm noting a .com article... What you said you could do was cite a dozen recent, reputable studies. Who posts their study at a .com? You knew what you were posting.

So you were lying about that too.

So far, you've tried to gaslight someone - not me, right? Because that would be a big fail... - about these things:

1. That masks don't stop viruses because a single virus is really small - never mind that they hang out in sundry in droplets that do get stopped by masks.

2. That masks are supposed to protect the wearer, but don't - never mind that we all know that they mainly protect the people in proximity to the wearer and not the wearer themselves.

3. That you could cite a dozen recent reputable studies showing that mask wearing is ineffectual - never mind that you cited four ..."items" that do not fit the criteria of being 1.) a dozen in aggregate, 2.) recent 3.) or reputable.

With your credibility shot, I'm going to constantly remind you of these lapses with each post until you deal with each lapse head on - without pivoting to something else. We'll keep coming back to each one, all the time. Because if we don't, you'll just continue to lead us on a tail chase to other areas of drivel, won't you? Yes, the word drivel was used again. Okay, either fix this up or get ready for your reminders.

 

[Burrapeg]

The point is, I don’t believe we have a choice. It’s not about whether I’m willing to take the chance. The only way to truly stop it is to basically cease all human activity. And even then it doesn’t go away. It waits till we come out of hiding.

Total BS. We have plenty of choice. You can choose to take precautions proven to slow the virus or you can choose to be a selfish, ignorant fool. Other countries, and a few of our own states, have controlled it quite effectively and have been able to re-open to some extent. The economy is suffering a lot more, and will continue to suffer longer, from people like you and other right-wing Trump worshipers not taking it seriously from day one, and putting money and economy before lives and health. This could have been whipped by now except for our moron in chief and far too many selfish Americans just like him.

 

[Bucknut]

I could post 3 dozen and you’d know more than all the PhDs who published them. Against your withering intellect I’m flummoxed. Guess I’ll just slink away in shame and shut up.

Or not.

You assume I give a single shit about your opinion of me. I do not. You assume further that you set the terms of debate. You do not. Stop attacking the messenger and confront the uncomfortable notion that what you think you know of viral transmissibility is at best incomplete and at worst laughably flawed. And I’ll do the same.

 

[colb]

I could post 3 dozen and you’d know more than all the PhDs who published them. Against your withering intellect I’m flummoxed. Guess I’ll just slink away in shame and shut up.

Or not.

You assume I give a single shit about your opinion of me. I do not. You assume further that you set the terms of debate. You do not. Stop attacking the messenger and confront the uncomfortable notion that what you think you know of viral transmissibility is at best incomplete and at worst laughably flawed. And I’ll do the same.

Just a reminder, you shot your credibility concerning the following:

1. That masks don't stop viruses because a single virus is really small - never mind that they hang out in sundry in droplets that do get stopped by masks.

2. That masks are supposed to protect the wearer, but don't - never mind that we all know that they mainly protect the people in proximity to the wearer and not the wearer themselves.

3. That you could cite a dozen recent reputable studies showing that mask wearing is ineffectual - never mind that you cited four ..."items" that do not fit the criteria of being 1.) a dozen in aggregate, 2.) recent 3.) or reputable.

We all know these things, yet you're still gaslighting with them. You're not an attacked messenger, you're a messenger spreading lies that you know are lies and you're being held accountable for your previous lies before we continue on. Can you address these lies instead of pivoting to being a victim, soliciting our pity, and seeking equal consideration on those grounds? The three points above are a reminder that you are not a victim of an attack, but rather a fountain of misinformation that you know are lies.

 

[Burrapeg]

You assume I give a single shit about your opinion of me.

I don't think any of us assume that at all. Your posts have proved along that you don't give a shit.

 

[Bucknut]

I'm noting a .org link, so that's not peer reviewed either, right? ...You knew that.

Well that’s weird.... one of the world’s most respected medical journals- known for its peer reviewed papers- is a lowly “.org”.

 

[Burrapeg]

From New England Journal of Medicine which you just cited:

> As SARS-CoV-2 continues its global spread, it’s possible that one of the pillars of Covid-19 pandemic control — universal facial masking — might help reduce the severity of disease and ensure that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic. If this hypothesis is borne out, universal masking could become a form of “variolation” that would generate immunity and thereby slow the spread of the virus in the United States and elsewhere, as we await a vaccine.
One important reason for population-wide facial masking became apparent in March, when reports started to circulate describing the high rates of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding from the noses and mouths of patients who were presymptomatic or asymptomatic — shedding rates equivalent to those among symptomatic patients. . .

Full article:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913

 

[Bucknut]

@colb Clearly you did not bother to read any of the links above. For example, with regard to your assertion that masks are worn to protect those in proximity to the wearer, if you had read the correct link you would have seen that certain facial coverings (especially bandannas and neck fleeces) actually increase the dispersal of virus as it is exhaled. Their fine weave actually serves to effectively aerosolize your exhaled breath making it more dangerous/transmissive than if nothing at all was worn.

You all tout science unless and until it disagrees with you. I suppose I’m the same. Maybe we have that in common.

 

[Burrapeg]

Bucknut, any idiot kniows that by 'masks' the experts are assuming real ones, N95's etc. Neck sleeves, hankies, home-made ones out of insufficient layers, bandanas, these are not effective masks. Of course they are not effective. But the real thing is. That's why doctors, nurses, etc. tend to wear them.

 

[colb]

View attachment 70654
Well that’s weird.... one of the world’s most respected medical journals- known for its peer reviewed papers- is a lowly “.org”.

My expectations were really low - I'll credit that one to you. There are three more articles that you are not defending. Of the dozen you could post when you wrote that you could post a dozen - you came up 11 short. You couldn't really post a dozen when you said you could. But, you could make up for it in my book by posting 11 more recent reputable studies showing that mask wearing is ineffectual.

Also outstanding is your plan for addressing these points that you made previously:

1. That masks don't stop viruses because a single virus is really small - never mind that they hang out in sundry in droplets that do get stopped by masks.

2. That masks are supposed to protect the wearer, but don't - never mind that we all know that they mainly protect the people in proximity to the wearer and not the wearer themselves.

If all of this is suitably addressed through evidence or apology, I'll start addressing whatever is posted in the future. Until then, I will keep reminding you and everyone on this thread about the current status of your credibility since we don't want to waste our breath or propagate disinformation regarding a pandemic that kills lots of people, or the deniers behind the propagation of disinformation. No free lunch @Bucknut . Earn it.

 

[colb]

@colb Clearly you did not bother to read any of the links above. For example, with regard to your assertion that masks are worn to protect those in proximity to the wearer, if you had read the correct link you would have seen that certain facial coverings (especially bandannas and neck fleeces) actually increase the dispersal of virus as it is exhaled. Their fine weave actually serves to effectively aerosolize your exhaled breath making it more dangerous/transmissive than if nothing at all was worn.

You all tout science unless and until it disagrees with you. I suppose I’m the same. Maybe we have that in common.

If it is the New England Journal of Medicine article, or a recent reputable study showing that mask wearing is ineffectual, I will go read it. I appreciate that you're mentioning a mechanism and I am willing to look into how this affects the rehabilitation of 1/12th of 1/3 (or 1/36th) of your credibility.

This does not in any way address the following points made earlier:

1. That masks don't stop viruses because a single virus is really small - never mind that they hang out in sundry in droplets that do get stopped by masks.

2. That masks are supposed to protect the wearer, but don't - never mind that we all know that they mainly protect the people in proximity to the wearer and not the wearer themselves.

 

[Bucknut]

From New England Journal of Medicine which you just cited:

> As SARS-CoV-2 continues its global spread, it’s possible that one of the pillars of Covid-19 pandemic control — universal facial masking — might help reduce the severity of disease and ensure that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic. If this hypothesis is borne out, universal masking could become a form of “variolation” that would generate immunity and thereby slow the spread of the virus in the United States and elsewhere, as we await a vaccine.
One important reason for population-wide facial masking became apparent in March, when reports started to circulate describing the high rates of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding from the noses and mouths of patients who were presymptomatic or asymptomatic — shedding rates equivalent to those among symptomatic patients. . .

Full article:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913

Fair. Though I would note for the record that the article’s hypothesis is that it’s possible that masking might help reduce severity of disease. Hardly a firm conclusion. Also focuses on N95 masks, not cloth.

(Don’t show this to Colb. He’ll dismiss it out of hand because it comes from a .org.)

Wait. No he won’t. Because he agrees with the hypothesis.

 

[Burrapeg]

As I already said, Bucknut, they focus on N95's and other genuine masks for obvious reasons. Cloth alone and other home-brew stuff like just pulling a neck sleeve up, are not masks. Effective masks are masks designed for that purpose.

 

[colb]

Fair. Though I would note for the record that the article’s hypothesis is that it’s possible that masking might help reduce severity of disease. Hardly a firm conclusion. Also focuses on N95 masks, not cloth.

(Don’t show this to Colb. He’ll dismiss it out of hand because it comes from a .org.)

Wait. No he won’t. Because he agrees with the hypothesis.

It's @colb , not colb.

The overwhelming burden is on you @Bucknut, because you spread the following disinformation:

1. That masks don't stop viruses because a single virus is really small - never mind that they hang out in sundry in droplets that do get stopped by masks.

2. That masks are supposed to protect the wearer, but don't - never mind that we all know that they mainly protect the people in proximity to the wearer and not the wearer themselves.

3. That you could cite a dozen recent reputable studies showing that mask wearing is ineffectual - never mind that you cited three ..."items" that do not fit the criteria of being 1.) a dozen in aggregate, 2.) recent 3.) or reputable, and one that did.

 

[owScott]

There it is. The tolerance and inclusivity of the modern left on full display.

Healthy societies should routinely contemplate smashing the skulls of people they disagree with politically, don’t you think?

I think disdain for Trump has gone past the political. His record in business and behavior towards people, especially women is deserving of the disdain he is recieving as a person. So saying people dont wish well him just because we disagree with his politics is giving him the victim role. I disagree with his politics but as a person I think this guy is a shit pile. I only need 2 examples to qualify him for this, banging porn stars when married and wife is pregant and admitting he sexually assualts women (access hollywood tape). I thought all you consevatives were all fired up about the sanctity of marrage evidently only when it suits your politics just like most of the hypocritical consevative agenda. To be clear I do not advocate violence.

 

[climbingmonkey24]

The point is, I don’t believe we have a choice. It’s not about whether I’m willing to take the chance. The only way to truly stop it is to basically cease all human activity. And even then it doesn’t go away. It waits till we come out of hiding.

There again, other countries were able to get it under control!

If that means no bars, restaurants, etc. for a while, then so be it. A small price to pay to get a deadly pandemic under control.

 

[owScott]

Also Trumps disrespect toward John McCain before and after his death and his comments about other veterans is outside the political realm. This I will not tolerate.

 

[rico]

How many folks, including his secret service detail, do you think were exposed to covid, and how many tax payer dollars did it cost for Trump to go on his little joyride around Walter Reed today..Trump continuing to risk peoples lives while he plays political games. We clearly have an out of control made man at the helm he needs to be removed from office immediately.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...physician-swipes-at-trump-for-motorcade-visit

https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results

 

[Burrapeg]

I wonder how many of the approx. 210,000 Americans would have improved and avoided death if they could have had the same massive level of care being lavished at taxpayers' expense on Trump? He will probably still push to kill the Affordable Care Act if he wins re-election. The fact that it works just fine for many millions of us who would otherwise not have any coverage at all is of little concern to him or most of the rest of the GOP; it is far too big a threat to the insurance industry and their profits.

 

[evo]

Holy shit! Have you submitted your findings for peer review yet? I mean, Jesus Christ man, you’ve just cured the planet of all transmissible disease! This is a momentous occasion, on par with the moon landing at least.

Needless to say, it’s not quite that simple. If wearing a mask makes you feel better, so be it. No, I’m not a doctor, but I assure you a piece of your t-shirt simply isn’t going to stop a virus that is .12 microns in size. That virus will go thru that mask like throwing a pebble into the Lincoln Tunnel. But whatever. If I gotta wear a mask to go shopping these days I’ll get over it.

Seriously? Nitwit the mask prevents the VECTOR which is water droplets that CARRY the VIRUS. Much like wearing a ball gag prevents you from speaking stupidity