Hey, you CAN make a rational post. I have to find that study that you are referring to - it was from a somewhat reputable sourceGo find one post where I suggested you should just gobble up ivermectin and skip your vaccines. This isn't the meat and potatoes of any argument, it's a black-or-white fallacy that is used to rob other preventative treatments of any value.
This is one of the reasons 80% of America is unaware of available treatments prior to covid-19 hospitalization. People paint other therapies into a corner with fallacy ridden arguments. As a result, people test positive and go sit at home for two weeks until they're hospitalized.
On your 1st day of symptoms, you should be trying to find a rapid test near you. On day 4, you should receive a PCR test. If positive, within the next 6 days, you should receive the Regeneron treatment from a clinic in your area. Your goal should be Monoclonal antibodies within the first 10 days of symptoms. That's the absolute best defense against covid that's currently available, and NO ONE knows about it.
Everything in regard to Ivermectin is recommended prophylactic use, and I keep getting quoted studies that have ZERO prophylactic use. I'm done with the argument, do whatever you want to treat your covid. Half of the posters here probably aren't even supplementing vitamin d and zinc. Ivermectin is suggested 3mg tablet per WEEK and you guys are in here arguing about drinking horse paste. Good job letting the media suck you into their shitty narrative. I'm going to exercise every harmless preventative treatment available, because I live in a capitalistic society where my money talks.
Who in this thread is actually a doctor or scientist?
You seem to have learned the zricky method of twisting facts to make them sound bad.I never stated it did not stop the droplets at all. The masks are not the solution particularly to kids who have a high rate of survival to COVID. To say masks are 50-70% ineffective paints a bit of a different picture. I would agree a little is better than nothing however many believe it is the ultimate solution to stopping the spread of COVID and it is characterized as such rather broadly.
At the end we are REQUIRING people to wear masks that are 50-70 percent ineffective for a virus with a high rate of survivability. Makes sense to me.
All fair points. But you did ask for data showing how/if masks are able to impede transmission of aerosols, and turns out they do help. Of course, they don't stop everything.Most of us are in an office 8 hours a day. We go to the gym 30-60min. We're with friends and family for extended periods of time. Realistically, I just don't know what setting you're going to be in where a mask is going to make a difference. It takes 5-15 minutes of exposure to be at risk, so chatting with a cashier masked or not likely isn't risky to begin with. It's not the short interactions we need protection from.
Everyone at my mask wearing work has contracted covid over the past 1.5 years. What was the purpose of wearing masks?Imagine instead of one singular hours long event, millions of shorter interactions. In each of those shorter interactions the virus is simply less likely to spread if impeded (to whatever degree) by the mask.
At a super spreader event, you are correct, the mask ultimately does nothing as your exposure time is simply too long.
Gretafan is one of a kind.You and greta are two peas. My God, the existence of such a group is truly impressive.
Not arguing about definitions, just educating the grasshoppa.
So I seeMrs P
This worth reading again, however as new kid one of the many rules in this thread grammar isn't strongly enforced (neither is truth)
Mud
+1 on the welcome
But everyone goes to work, so we have billions of interactions, and people still contract covid en masse. Everyone in the building i work in has had covid. So what was the goal of mask wearing? To prevent covid spread altogether? Then masks failed. To flatten the curve? We are 1.5+ years into the flattenning effort. How much longer?Sure, I'll concede that time exposed is very important. Like anotero said, 10 hours in one room where everyone is masked isn't going to do anyone any favors. But in general, taking into account the relatively short nature of many interactions, masks are better than no masks. They don't stop aerosols and droplets, they reduce. That's all I've been saying this whole time.
Here's a study that specifically investigates aerosol escape. They conclude that masks are better than no masks.
Expiratory aerosol particle escape from surgical masks due to imperfect sealing | Scientific Reports (nature.com)
Thank you dear. Been lurking for a while and decided to come out n play.Welcome to the forum and thread. Virtual high five.
So you're the closest, but still neither of those.
That pretty much sums it up.So you're the closest, but still neither of those.
Everyone else is just a bunch of guys and gals that are completely unqualified to have any sort of opinion about any of the topics over which you are arguing about.
I dunno, we don masks where I work and very few people have gotten it.Everyone at my mask wearing work has contracted covid over the past 1.5 years. What was the purpose of wearing masks?
Except this is a forum, the thread is just for entertainment, and it doesn't matter what other people use their time for.So you're the closest, but still neither of those.
Everyone else is just a bunch of guys and gals that are completely unqualified to have any sort of opinion about any of the topics over which you are arguing about.