Coronavirus

[Robert Tulip]

Face Masks Are Lethal

Face masks are an essential and effective way to cut the spread of the epidemic. Rejecting face masks is the sort of disinformation that encourages a highly dangerous and baseless disbelief in public health measures. Such claims are deadly and should not be spread.

edit to add: I clicked on the link, and got the following:

This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines.
Learn more

[KindaSkolarly]

I know you guys are able to read, so why can't you process what you read? I'll reiterate a couple of points. 1) Positive for the common cold = positive for the Wuhan virus. 2) If you test positive, then everybody you have had contact with is given a positive test result, even without testing. You're falling for fake science. The infection numbers are made up. Your insistence that people accept your fake science is unseemly.

And this virus is 0.1 micron across. Face masks have gaps that range from 20 to 100 microns. Fauci himself said the masks are mainly to relieve anxiety.

Please stop pushing the fake science. Look at the harm it can do:

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-n ... mate-scare

[Robert Tulip]

Fauci himself said the masks are mainly to relieve anxiety.

Wow, what a pathetic lie. You are delusional and dangerous. Here is something Fauci actually said.

"Masks are not 100 percent protective. However, they certainly are better than not wearing a mask. Both to prevent you, if you happen to be a person who maybe feels well, but has an asymptomatic infection that you don't even know about, to prevent you from infecting someone else. But also, it can protect you a certain degree, not a hundred percent, in protecting you from getting infected from someone who, either is breathing, or coughing, or sneezing, or singing or whatever it is in which the droplets or the aerosols go out. So masks work.”

“The important thing is actually physical separation,” Fauci said, adding that the combination of social distancing and face masks is the best way for the public to mitigate the spread and reduce transmission while maintaining some normalcy by venturing in public.

[ant]

Robert wrote:

Face masks are an essential and effective way to cut the spread of the epidemic. Rejecting face masks is the sort of disinformation that encourages a highly dangerous and baseless disbelief in public health measures. Such claims are deadly and should not be spread.

The US Surgeon General disagrees with you:

Seriously, people. stop buying face masks! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching Coronavirus,

As did the CDC:

"CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19,"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 922614002/


Here's CNN claiming mask may actually INCREASE the chances of catching COVID19

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/s ... index.html


Oh, and remember all the media condemnation about Hydroxychloroquin mostly from CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/health/h ... index.html

and from Dr Fauci

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics ... index.html


Turns out "science says" it does help patients recover - latest tests

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hydroxyc ... 27157.html


Hell, even CNN has to admit it helps (the word "help" made it a little easier to say)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/02/heal ... index.html


Are you a medical doctor, Robert?

How about you, Harry? You thanked Robert's post so you much agree with him here.

[ant]

Both the CDC and Dr Fauci waffled horribly on the entire face mask issue

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marleycoyn ... 8af2ff32fe

It was very clear at the beginning citizens were told face masks do absolutely nothing to protect coronavirus infection.

If this was an intentional lie to keep people from exhausting N95 stock and in so doing placing medical professionals who are exposed to infected people more than the average citizen, then at the very least Dr Fauci , the CDC and WHO could have suggested clothe masks for the public from the very start.



The wear your mask mob has forgotten how bad the waffling has been.. That, or they are straight-faced liars that are using mask wearing as a virtue token.

[ant]

Democratic Governor Newsom excludes his winery from COViD19 closures


https://www.independentsentinel.com/gov ... own-order/


https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/ar ... 505350.php

[Robert Tulip]

The US Surgeon General disagrees

I see ant is joining KS in the Pathetic Liars Club. It appears that President Trump has so effectively normalised the ethics of constant lying that his supporters have adopted it as a coping strategy.

The Surgeon General entirely agrees with my comment.

A moment's study shows ant's outdated quote from the Surgeon General was dated 1 March, and was entirely in the context of warning against stockpiling and panic buying at a time when front line supplies for health staff were under strain.

Looking for the current advice, the Surgeon General now says "Some feel face coverings infringe on their freedom of choice- but if more wear them, we’ll have MORE freedom to go out. Face coverings lead to less asymptomatic viral spread, leading to more places open, and sooner! Exercise and promote your freedom by choosing to wear a face covering!"

[Harry Marks]

I know you guys are able to read, so why can't you process what you read?

You would like us to believe that anything that can be read, at least if you present it, is to be believed. But you believe Alex Jones, and reprint idiocy regularly, so, no, sorry.

1) Positive for the common cold = positive for the Wuhan virus.

You should know better than to buy into this. Too much evidence and discussion has been around to take it seriously. If there are some tests that fail in such a systematic way, they will be weeded out fairly quickly. Plenty of checking has taken place with results that really match the experience, and this confounding by the common cold is not a feature of the good tests.

2) If you test positive, then everybody you have had contact with is given a positive test result, even without testing.

I know of a counterexample from direct knowledge. One source, taken down from its platform for stupidity, does not make this so.

You're falling for fake science.

And I am supposed to take your word for this? It might be interesting to go back and copy in some of the really stupid stuff you have posted about this epidemic just to make it clear why I am not going to take your word. But life is short, and it will make no difference to your understanding, so, no.

The infection numbers are made up. Your insistence that people accept your fake science is unseemly.

I now know people (friends of friends, but not just CNN ciphers) who have died of the virus. I am not going to listen to someone calling it fake. The numbers have bounced around a bit as counting methodologies have changed. But the obvious interpretation, that most policy people are acting in good faith but there are judgement calls involved, matches up well with the actuality of filled hospital wards, exhausted doctors, resurgence when caution slackens, and hot spots whose explanation makes complete sense.

And this virus is 0.1 micron across. Face masks have gaps that range from 20 to 100 microns. Fauci himself said the masks are mainly to relieve anxiety.

The droplets on which the virus is carried are much larger. There are actual tests now, like the one that got Trump so excited about disinfectant, that show masks make a significant difference in transmission (as does distance). Get over your paranoia, the doctors are not out to fool anybody. They are doing their best, we can do our best, and I intend to do my best.

[ant]

The US Surgeon General disagrees

I see ant is joining KS in the Pathetic Liars Club. It appears that President Trump has so effectively normalised the ethics of constant lying that his supporters have adopted it as a coping strategy.

The Surgeon General entirely agrees with my comment.

A moment's study shows ant's outdated quote from the Surgeon General was dated 1 March, and was entirely in the context of warning against stockpiling and panic buying at a time when front line supplies for health staff were under strain.

Looking for the current advice, the Surgeon General now says "Some feel face coverings infringe on their freedom of choice- but if more wear them, we’ll have MORE freedom to go out. Face coverings lead to less asymptomatic viral spread, leading to more places open, and sooner! Exercise and promote your freedom by choosing to wear a face covering!"

Which is why I said the waffling has been real and has been bad. You missed that part because you were in such a hurry to pigeonhole me to keep your fallacious THIS OR THAT B&W world safe.

It is monstrously disingenuous to whitewash the words - Seriously, people. stop buying face masks! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching Coronavirus, the Surgeon General spoke. It should be considered medical malpractice by a doctor in such a high office.

Those words mean now what they first meant back then.
Science didn't magically advance with updated facts about the effectiveness of masks. They've been worn by medical professionals for decades to help stave off infection. That much is undeniable.

If the Surgeon General and CDC were NOT speaking factually when they discouraged the public to wear facial coverings (FACT) then that it even worse.
Not only was it blatantly wrong to initially instruct the public masks do nothing to help prevent the spread of COVID19 it is downright criminal.
You are living in a self denying reality that no such discouragement ever existed.

Personally speaking, I am not against the wearing of a mask and have consistently done so whenever I have gone out in public. If anything, a mask in this case acts as a good placebo.

Has this entire pandemic been politicized? Of course it has.
Humankind can and does politicize everything at some point.

[Harry Marks]

How about you, Harry? You thanked Robert's post so you much agree with him here.

Pretty much, yes. It's regrettable that public health officials were downplaying the importance of masks at the beginning of the Covid spread, but that was pretty obviously due to the overall shortage of masks, which is almost surely not because of any decisions they made.

One of the unfortunate aspects of public policy is that the leaders have to balance short-term, urgency pressures against longer-term priorities which will reassert themselves. Since about the time of Newtie Gingrich's ascendancy in 1994, and accelerated by the 911 crisis and then the 2008 financial crisis, the governmental process is increasingly being driven by those short-term urgency considerations. Why? Because long-term considerations (keeping Social Security solvent, managing the deficit, keeping the infrastructure in shape, balancing climate costs of fossil fuels against economic costs of limiting them, etc.) have been pushed aside or twisted beyond recognition by emotional, symbolic considerations rather than taking a serious look at the issues.

If we had responded sensibly to previous pandemics, as the Asian countries did who were harder hit by them, we would have had enough masks and enough capacity to make more masks.

Oh, and remember all the media condemnation about Hydroxychloroquin mostly from CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/health/h ... index.html
and from Dr Fauci
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics ... index.html
Turns out "science says" it does help patients recover - latest tests
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hydroxyc ... 27157.html
Hell, even CNN has to admit it helps (the word "help" made it a little easier to say)
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/02/heal ... index.html

There was nothing wrong with Fauci's reaction. The original study, which generated some excitement for hydroxychloroquine plus AZT, was completely unstructured and offered nothing more than anecdote and the instincts of a (brilliant but erratic) single investigator. Public health officials should not be endorsing that kind of finding - it would be an open invitation to charlatans to claim anything they chose for the sake of a quick buck. So Fauci said, in effect, we don't know until we study it systematically.

The first disciplined, careful trial showed more harm than good. Until the latest, positive, trial is replicated, "science" will have little confidence in either. The investigators who got positive results speculated about a possible basis for their different finding, and no doubt added trials will try to replicate their "better" methodology or follow hunches to try different variations. That's fine. But until you have solid evidence, it isn't the basis for policy and I would say, at this stage, it isn't even a guide to best practice. At best it is a guide to "things to try" like turning the patient on his or her stomach, or whatever.

As I recall, "helps recover" was actually in the reported results of the initial, negative study. (I am just trying to remember a sentence heard on the radio while driving between towns, here - lucky for me I am not an official in charge of this stuff so I don't have to follow these results carefully). So that is not the surprising part of the latest results. Rather the balance being clearly positive - more help than harm - would be the novel result. I think it is consistent with medicine evolving in real time that enough other interventions or positive factors might have been developed to make the negative recede and the positive emerge.