Reply With Quote
I thought he was fishing there, tbh
Masks don't 100% prevent droplets from exiting, no one has ever said they catch everything.
I thought he was fishing there, tbh
What you say doesn't matter, since you've been shown to lie a lot. What matters is what you can prove.
Show your study that says 0%.
Don't need a study when I've seen the pics and you have too. Why you hiding from fsuci lies?
this is gossip
Gossip is pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks
Goals moved
El nonon mellllllltttttdddddoooowwwwnnnnnnn
Fauci lied and masks dont work. My study is the nordic countries
Nope he lied
And you're mad
So sorry
Goal was never moved. You just keep gossiping.
Show your study that says 0%... or fold.
could be a reasonable take in a vacuum, but look at his post history on the subject. heck look at the previous pages of this thread. nothing is in good faith. and he's not braindead like derp... he's being intentionally obtuse
imagine how sad it would be to make sxience political..... now fauci lies again and you meltdown.
Nordic countries no masks. Also say not proven. You smarter than those countries medical experts?
You just mad they have my same opinion.
I'm right
Gossip is pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks
smallpox vaccine makes me feel safe about not getting smallpox
therefore its a placebo
this is what he is unironically arguing
lololololololooloolololol
You're still mad bwahahahaha
So that's a fld... feel free to post your study when it's ready...
lol pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks
So then someone wearing a mask around someone else wearing a mask... what's the reduction % in viral transmission? You don't need to know the mask type since that's not your call.
Three weeks after Governor Greg Abbott issued a statewide mask mandate, some epidemiologists are cautiously optimistic the order is helping to bring down cases in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.
No, stupid simpleton, it's not. Stick to arguing contract law and leave science to people who do it.
you're not promoting anything resembling good science in this thread. i dont care what your day job is.
i dont have the exact number off-hand. do you want me to cite studies about reduction of transmission of covid-19 when (even cloth) masks are worn? we can both look those up quite easily. do you really need me to dig some up for you?
Cautiously optimistic equals scientific evidenceThree weeks after Governor Greg Abbott issued a statewide mask mandate, some epidemiologists are cautiously optimistic the order is helping to bring down cases in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.
I believe them more than I believe you.
You lie quite a bit to protect your narratives.
Don't have it off hand? Is that a chick way of saying it's unknowable without more data?
Consider this excerpt regarding the use of even surgical masks during surgery...
Statistical analysis of the extracted data revealed no statistically significant association between mask usage and the incidence of surgical site infection. The study concluded that ‘it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical facemasks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery’. However, each of the studies included could be criticised for risk of bias (Table 2). Indeed, the Webster study, arguably the most rigorous of the three, only investigated the impact of mask on non-scrubbed members of the surgical team. There is uncertainty over whether the findings of some of these studies are applicable to contemporary surgical practice.
Based upon the findings of this review, National Ins ute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines state that there is ‘limited evidence concerning the use of non-sterile theatre wear’ such as surgical masks when trying to minimise the risk of surgical site infection, although there was an overall ‘consensus that wearing non-sterile theatre wear is important in maintaining theatre discipline’. This latter statement seems to be a rather vague and likely unfounded assertion which implies a correlation between dress code, staff discipline and thereby patient safety outcomes. This may reflect a reluctance among the medical profession to deviate from embedded tradition as reflected in Leyland and McCloy’s questionnaire study.
It's notable that the left firmly believes the cause for gathering is honored by the virus, so that rioters not practicing social distancing or hygiene are exempt from the concept because of it therefore not a danger to themselves or others at all however if they for some reason attended church the following day, all bets are off.
Then you have the CDC not knowing droplets exist, not knowing asymptomatic individuals could exist, not considering cloth face masks, or coverings at all (scarf anyone?) and the left buys it like it makes any sense at all that a premier scientific authority didn't consider what Chinese women all over the world were already doing long before the virus was ever heard from. I don't buy that either. Add the surgeon general to it and suddenly they do a 180 and the left just sings right along like it makes perfect sense.
Then you have the distance sans masks... good enough, right? Then you add masks and the same distance, and that's even better. Why not go to 12 feet? 24?
Last edited by DMC; 07-30-2020 at 01:07 AM.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions