He spouts “because muh pandemic” as though just invoking its existence is sufficient to justify mindless obedience to his ‘safety’ Karening — well, soyboy, it’s NOT.
That snot-soaked face diaper on your face doesn’t protect you from the CCP virus anymore than wearing a Biden hat can protect you from the deadly effects of communism. In both cases, wearing it INCREASES your chances of death.
Maskers foist their own insistence as “science”, making nebulous claims that ’muh masks somehow prevent asymptomatic people from spreading muh corona via droplets expelled during breathing, talking, and coughing, by ‘trapping’ these droplets in the mask’.
THEY CANNOT SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS THESE COUNTERARGUMENTS:
Arguments range from common sense/logical to validated evidence/scientific data, from philosophical to practical and demonstrated by historical records. Some involve known measurements, some involve inferences from data, and some involve deductions from the real-world application of observed behavior and phenomena
Cloth masks have never historically been considered an effective option for stopping viruses except by the desperate, ignorant, or scared.
If an extra barrier around our breathing orifices reduced viral infections we would have evolved one either naturally or behaviorally (examples: natural saliva destroys viruses, most human cultures evolved to favor boiled and/or fermented drinks which long before germ theory was discovered)
If virus particles collect in the mask, the last thing you’d want is it to be resting against your lips all day.
Viruses are massively smaller than the filtration provided by any mask, including medical masks. It’s like using a chain-link fence to block mosquitoes, on the theory that some of the mosquitoes might be caught up and carried over in droplets from the lawn sprinkler.
Expelled air doesn’t just disappear when you breathe it into a mask. The only thing you’re going to change is the direction and perhaps the velocity of it’s spread. Rather than directly out and down, it is cast upwards and backwards through the gaps in the mask/face barrier, which extends the amount of time the virus is airborne, likely allows it to disperse over a greater area, creates ‘clouds’ at face level, and prevents a person from being able to choose the safest direction when talking or coughing.
The best disease entry point for airborne viruses is the eyes, which have far less natural antiviral defenses than the mouth and nose. The mask gaps direct a stream of particles up and into the eyes.
Infectious particles collecting in a mask barrier leads to rebreathing contamination that would otherwise be expelled out into an environment where UV rays would destroy the virus, and more likely infection along a nasal brain nerve pathway — increasing a mask-wearer’s risk of infection.
Increased personal risk of infection directly translates into greater community risk, so anything that exposes the individual de facto exposes the community (rather than the idea that one is taking on some personal risk to protect others). The biggest thing any person can do to protect others is to protect themselves.
Governments have a spectacularly poor record of misinterpreting science and mismanaging public health policy, often with disasterous consequences. Every bureaucratic effort surrounding Covid has been marked by incompetence and error. Why should mask mandates be an exception to this trend?
Health care is an individual responsibility and a matter of personal body autonomy and choice. Individuals have a right to make their OWN decisions. The ‘public health’ should not allow government to violate the rights of healthy people.
Mask mandates do not correlate with reductions in cases, infections, or deaths anywhere in the world, irregardless of compliance. In short, there is no good evidence that they actually work (claims to support that they do can be shown to rest upon presupposition, theoretical modeling, and extremely weak correlation).
There exists decades of valid scientific research about mask efficacy, virtually all of which goes against the ideas undergirding mask mandates. No new studies disproving or overriding this existing science has been done.
Even if masks were shown to give some benefit (and there are a few limited circumstances in which they can), easily observable behaviors surrounding the way they are actually donned, worn, stored, and handled in real-world settings clearly shows that actual practice negates and undermines any potential benefit (and studies show this is true even among highly trained medical professionals.
Asymptomatic people are not contagious* as demonstrated in a study of prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions late half of May in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.
MASKERS CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM — THEY JUST APPEAL TO THEIR AUTHORITY, CITE THEIR OWN MANDATES, AND REFER TO STUDIES THAT USE THEIR OWN ASSUMPTIONS AS FOUNDATIONAL INPUTS.
”It’s true because we think it is, based on a statement we put out that says so!”
He spouts “because muh pandemic” as though just invoking its existence is sufficient to justify mindless obedience to his ‘safety’ Karening — well, soyboy, it’s NOT.
That snot-soaked face diaper on your face doesn’t protect you from the CCP virus anymore than wearing a Biden hat can protect you from the deadly effects of communism. In both cases, wearing it INCREASES your chances of death.
Maskers foist their own insistence as “science”, making nebulous claims that ’muh masks somehow prevent asymptomatic people from spreading muh corona via droplets expelled during breathing, talking, and coughing, by ‘trapping’ these droplets in the mask’.
THEY CANNOT SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS THESE COUNTERARGUMENTS:
Arguments range from common sense/logical to validated evidence/scientific data, from philosophical to practical and demonstrated by historical records. Some involve known measurements, some involve inferences from data, and some involve deductions from the real-world application of observed behavior and phenomena
Cloth masks have never historically been considered an effective option for stopping viruses except by the desperate, ignorant, or scared.
If an extra barrier around our breathing orifices reduced viral infections we would have evolved one either naturally or behaviorally (examples: natural saliva destroys viruses, most human cultures evolved to favor boiled and/or fermented drinks which long before germ theory was discovered)
If virus particles collect in the mask, the last thing you’d want is it to be resting against your lips all day.
Viruses are massively smaller than the filtration provided by any mask, including medical masks. It’s like using a chain-link fence to block mosquitoes, on the theory that some of the mosquitoes might be caught up and carried over in droplets from the lawn sprinkler.
Expelled air doesn’t just disappear when you breathe it into a mask. The only thing you’re going to change is the direction and perhaps the velocity of it’s spread. Rather than directly out and down, it is cast upwards and backwards through the gaps in the mask/face barrier, which extends the amount of time the virus is airborne, likely allows it to disperse over a greater area, creates ‘clouds’ at face level, and prevents a person from being able to choose the safest direction when talking or coughing.
The best disease entry point for airborne viruses is the eyes, which have far less natural antiviral defenses than the mouth and nose. The mask gaps direct a stream of particles up and into the eyes.
Infectious particles collecting in a mask barrier leads to rebreathing contamination that would otherwise be expelled out into an environment where UV rays would destroy the virus, and more likely infection along a nasal brain nerve pathway — increasing a mask-wearer’s risk of infection.
Increased personal risk of infection directly translates into greater community risk, so anything that exposes the individual de facto exposes the community (rather than the idea that one is taking on some personal risk to protect others). The biggest thing any person can do to protect others is to protect themselves.
Governments have a spectacularly poor record of misinterpreting science and mismanaging public health policy, often with disasterous consequences. Every bureaucratic effort surrounding Covid has been marked by incompetence and error. Why should mask mandates be an exception to this trend?
Health care is an individual responsibility and a matter of personal body autonomy and choice. Individuals have a right to make their OWN decisions. The ‘public health’ should not allow government to violate the rights of healthy people.
Mask mandates do not correlate with reductions in cases, infections, or deaths anywhere in the world, irregardless of compliance. In short, there is no good evidence that they actually work (claims to support that they do can be shown to rest upon presupposition, theoretical modeling, and extremely weak correlation).
There exists decades of valid scientific research about mask efficacy, virtually all of which goes against the ideas undergirding mask mandates. No new studies disproving or overriding this existing science has been done.
Even if masks were shown to give some benefit (and there are a few limited circumstances in which they can), easily observable behaviors surrounding the way they are actually donned, worn, stored, and handled in real-world settings clearly shows that actual practice negates and undermines any potential benefit (and studies show this is true even among highly trained medical professionals.
Asymptomatic people are not contagious* as demonstrated in a study of prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions late half of May in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.
https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomatic-spread-revisited/
MASKERS CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM — THEY JUST APPEAL TO THEIR AUTHORITY, CITE THEIR OWN MANDATES, AND REFER TO STUDIES THAT USE THEIR OWN ASSUMPTIONS AS FOUNDATIONAL INPUTS.
”It’s true because we think it is, based on a statement we put out that says so!”
Included in this batch of info are links that disprove the ‘correlation’ claims including this latest Arizona ‘correlation’ “study”: https://thedonald.win/p/11Qkx3cYy0/cdcs-latest-arizona-mask-study-i/
STUDY LINKS, EXPLANATIONS, AND SOURCES OF MASK SCIENCE
Including:
https://thedonald.win/p/HEgcXddD/forcing-me-to-wear-political-sym/