News1 min ago
Here Is Proof, Proof, That Face Masks...........
49 Answers
...........are useless. If they do the job they're supposed to, why is there such a big increase in positive tests? Admit it; they don't serve any purpose do they?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
10CS- //If facemasks did the job that people say they do, the positive results wouldn't be increasing would they?//
Not necessarily. They could well be slowing down positive tests. As I said you have nothing to compare these results with, so you have no "proof" to offer. The only proof here is proof that you'll use anything to push your anti-mask agenda.
Not necessarily. They could well be slowing down positive tests. As I said you have nothing to compare these results with, so you have no "proof" to offer. The only proof here is proof that you'll use anything to push your anti-mask agenda.
Standard face masks are ineffective, even if worn 'properly' if you don't believe me ask someone to smoke, or vape tobacco & breathe out to watch the smoke pour out, top bottom & sideways.
I wish I had invested heavily into shares in the companies producing these silly objects, I'd now be a billionaire.
I wish I had invested heavily into shares in the companies producing these silly objects, I'd now be a billionaire.
// If facemasks did the job that people say they do, the positive results wouldn't be increasing would they? //
If there are multiple factors involved, then why would this be necessarily an expectation?
The misconception here is clearly that an approach can only be "effective" if it strictly turns the rate of infection increase negative. This is a mistake, for several reasons. The most obvious is that, even if viewed in strict terms (R less than 1 = good, R greater than 1 = bad), one measure alone is rarely enough, but in combination they can be effective. Moreover, the combination is not necessarily linear. More, still, the target may ideally be R below 1, but if this isn't reached then keeping R as low as possible is still preferable. Mask-wearing has been shown to reduce R if it is widespread and encouraged practice.
https:/
If there are multiple factors involved, then why would this be necessarily an expectation?
The misconception here is clearly that an approach can only be "effective" if it strictly turns the rate of infection increase negative. This is a mistake, for several reasons. The most obvious is that, even if viewed in strict terms (R less than 1 = good, R greater than 1 = bad), one measure alone is rarely enough, but in combination they can be effective. Moreover, the combination is not necessarily linear. More, still, the target may ideally be R below 1, but if this isn't reached then keeping R as low as possible is still preferable. Mask-wearing has been shown to reduce R if it is widespread and encouraged practice.
https:/
Sneezing into your arm was worldwide advice:
https:/
https:/
//How do you know that the increase wouldn't be bigger if people didn't wear masks?//
You don’t. Nobody does. You don’t know how much smaller the increase would have been if they had not been mandated either. It’s simply an assumption. There’s never been a “control.” The assumptions, which are based on minimal scientific evidence don’t take account of things like this:
//Dragging a crumpled one out of a pocket? Well that is disgusting and lazy.//
Because that’s what 99% of the population does (just look around you). And I’ve seen a lot worse than that. I’ve seen them pulled from a pocket, dropped on the pavement, picked up and then placed over the nose and mouth. Deightful.
The biggest risk to a wearer is the way he or she treats the practice and almost all people do not follow best practice. In fact many don’t even follow worst practice. They follow no practice at all. That’s why the results of any studies are flawed.
You don’t. Nobody does. You don’t know how much smaller the increase would have been if they had not been mandated either. It’s simply an assumption. There’s never been a “control.” The assumptions, which are based on minimal scientific evidence don’t take account of things like this:
//Dragging a crumpled one out of a pocket? Well that is disgusting and lazy.//
Because that’s what 99% of the population does (just look around you). And I’ve seen a lot worse than that. I’ve seen them pulled from a pocket, dropped on the pavement, picked up and then placed over the nose and mouth. Deightful.
The biggest risk to a wearer is the way he or she treats the practice and almost all people do not follow best practice. In fact many don’t even follow worst practice. They follow no practice at all. That’s why the results of any studies are flawed.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.