Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

I can't tell ya how little I care about what bothers you. But to the point. Define the premise of CRT please.

CRT encourages divide, segregation, hate which leads to violence. It's a dead end socially.

Not what I've been saying. What I've said was, your sexuality has no value towards your application to schools or employment. As such, you should not be asked to declare it.

And again, each state will be governed as the people wish it to be governed. And if that doesn't align with your values or beliefs...they won't give a ****.

Fetus is a baby. There is no magical third ingredient added during pregnancy that changes it to become a baby. It just needs time to grow and develop. The magic isn't a heartbeat or a developed brain or some other trait you require be developed for the fetus to have value. The value happens at conception. At conception the entire human DNA is mapped out. It's hair color, eye color, sex, blood time, height... The person of value which is unique and will never be replicated again exists.

 

Your previous post:
"That's a very simple way of describing what CRT pushes or promotes. Sorry if that bothers you.”

Now we can’t believe anything you say according to your own words.

Ok. The definition of the premise is the same definition as it is for any premise: a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

However, what you probably really wanted was the definition of CRT (but were trying hard to sound intelligent)….
"Critical race theory (CRT) is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to analysing how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. CRT also considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, and not only based on individuals' prejudices.[1][2] The word critical in the name is an academic reference to critical thinking, critical theory, and scholarly criticism, rather than criticizing or blaming individuals."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Wrong. Becoming aware of the wrongs of life in racist, segregated society doesn’t lead to more of the same. But we have seen that burying and denying and banning reference to such things has led to an environment in which they fester and get much worse. And that is the goal of white supremacists like DeSantis and Trump.

CORRECTION: "your sexuality should have no value towards your application to schools or employment.” Unfortunately, neglect has created a situation we now have in which sexuality DOES have “value towards your application to schools or employment” all too often. And anti-discrimination laws need additional scope and authority to correct the situation.

Federal law, when needed, can be and IS applied to states. The issue of abortion is a case of personal and civil rights, mainly of the patient and the doctor. And currently there are federal laws on the books pertaining to local and state police. See page 21 - “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”. Clearly the issue of laws restricting access to abortion can be similarly addressed by federal law.

You can say as often as you like. You can even get a parrot to repeat it endlessly. But it doesn’t make it true.
Cambridge Dictionary: BABY - a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk: a newborn baby

Oxford Dictionary: BABY - a very young child or animal

Collins Dictionary: BABY - A baby is a very young child, especially one that cannot yet walk or talk.

And until it develops to a specific degree, it a fetus, -not a "baby”.

You pretend that matters. It doesn’t The method of cloning was first successful in 1958 when SKIN CELLS of frogs were successfully used to clone frogs, and then in 1996 Dolly the sheep was cloned from udder cells of a sheep. So in these cases everything you listed is true of other types of cells. In your case the natural female body presents the necessary conditions and environment, and in the case of Dolly the necessary conditions had to be produced in the laboratory. But your attempt to declare conception and development of a fetus in utero has some unique importance rendering the fetus inviolable is nonsense.

This also shows your last sentence is completely bogus.

 

.deleted

 

I’ve never been pregnant but like all men, my DNA including all details of hair color, eye color, sex, blood type, height, etc., is mapped out in every cell of my body. I suspect the same is true of you.

So your “reasoning” is entirely and deeply flawed, erroneous, bogus, and bullshit.

 

.

 

Somebody who calls himself @ToughTalk but can’t ensure a proper post so that I can reply in the usual way, said:

Oh! So now you see that CRT teaches us to see the systemic racism as described in my quote? Whoda thunk it?

WTF does COVID have to do with this. TRUMP began it with his hyperracist hate that oozes out of him like feces oozes out of a swine. All the other pigs at the trough ran to gobble it up and now we see it paraded before the public regularly.

If you don’t care, then why do you make it an issue? You could just leave it alone as I prefer to do. But you don’t think most people usually know when they’ve met a gay man? You don’t know the signs? Of course you do.

Yep, the cells of a human fetus are human. You’re such a genius!

So you’re whole argument against abortion is based on future probabilities. Abortion is about NOW. How in hell does a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy deal with your future probabilities??? That’s exactly what she wants to avoid before it’s too late, unless we’re talking about medical necessity which you and I have no business worrying about.

Ok this one is going to come right back and bite you on the ass. YOU were talking about DNA of a fetus mapping out all the traits of the fetus and of the future child, implying, it appeared, that you were presenting it as an argument for opposing abortion and that the fetus is the future person. DNA was the center of your argument. I showed your argument for DNA was BULLSHIT. Now you’re devious and corrupt enough to call me a “dumbass” for it when it really turns right around on you.

I’m done with your line of garbage. Have the last word. I won’t be replying.

 

There is no systemic racism against black people in the united states right now. None. As a matter of fact, the only system that was in place to target and reward or punish based on race, was affirmative action. And now that is finally gone we can say we've stamped out systemic racism. CRT perpetuating the notion of oppressor and victim based on race is a cancer of which you described in our definition which is a more heavily worded version of my definition. Both say the same thing. This is not teaching about slavery...this is perpetuating mistrust and hate which leads to violence. Which we are seeing in the FBI crime reports. As well as the sudden need for blacks to want to have their own spaces away from other races, specifically whites.

Because you lack the ability to keep up with the discussion, I predicted you would blame the rise in hate crimes and violence to COVID. But somehow you got lost along the way.

Because it shouldn't be asked on an application? It's information is private and we should not be requesting it to either reward or punish based on that information. I think this has been made very clear. Yet again, somehow...you got lost along the way.

You are done because your argument is shallow and ridiculous.

The fetus IS human. It IS alive. Abortions end that life. The fetus is unique. It has intrinsic value. It doesn't need a heart beat to suddenly gain value. It already had that value based on what it is at conception. A new UNIQUE human life form. 100 percent of abortions are about the ending of that life form. It's not a cancer, or a clump of cells or any other bullshit label you wish to use as a weak attempt to devalue it.

 

For him it is. I call it either the 'Cult of the Mask' or the 'Church of COVID'.

It's gotta suck living in such fear all the time...

 

Fetus is a particular developmental stage of life for various species (human is one such species).

Baby is the offspring of a sexual species (such as the human species).

Ergo, a human baby (for a time) is a fetus (meaning in the fetal stage of life).

This is medically true. This is scientifically true. This is logically true.

See above.

Unconstitutional. Why do leftists hate the constitution so much? (rhetorical question)

 

You continue to peddle misinformation.

Masks (ESPECIALLY the ones that people are actually wearing) do not work for filtering out viruses. Mask pores are too large and viruses are too small. People don't wear masks correctly. People don't wear masks 24/7. People don't follow cleanliness protocol re: masks. Etc etc etc

 

Ahhhhhhh, okay... So, in this case:

Fetus: a specific stage of human life (after embryo, prior to birth).
Newborn ("baby"): a specific stage of human life (after birth, before ability to walk).

Fine. So you're simply speaking about two different developmental stages of human life. It's still human life, dude, regardless of what particular stage of life the human is in.

 

Okay, but it doesn't matter. Humans have never valued life. It has always been a particular type of life. And it's not even "human life," it's human life with a mind (some people do care about animal rights). Mindless things have no inherent moral value. They cannot think, suffer, feel or exist in a meaningful way. "Their" rights cannot be held above the rights of actual, thinking human beings.

 

Do you really believe all viruses float around naked? If you realize droplets exist, and that a significant proportion of viruses are in them, then logically it would follow that anything that can reduce the transmission of such particles would have an impact on whether infection occurs. Masks do that, to varying degrees. Not all infections are likely with just one virion getting through, most require many to get through for infection to occur. Earlier strains of covid likely required more viruses to get through to cause infection, hence masks were more effective then than now.

Well-designed studies show that masks do work, but it's true they weren't as important as vaccination was.

 

Masks do not work, this is beyond question. Droplets are not the cause of spread in every day living. People already are well accustomed to covering thier mouths when coughing or sneezing. So using a mask does nothing.

It’s not helping you or anyone around you and the science has finally caught up to the common sense in this regard.

Masking was, and is, just an emotional attachment to the signature of who your tribe is. It was political, not science

 

Doctors still mask, and not all of them are democrats. Droplets are a major vehicle for covid transmission (albeit not the only one - smaller aerosols matter too). The science does not show what you say. The OP study was simply misused/misinterpreted by the media.

Here's a better study than the OP for the quesion of general mask efficacy (so it pools crappier cloth masks with better masks) for covid, though I've linked it before without anybody attempting to critique it. Mask wearing in community settings reduces SARS-CoV-2 transmission | PNAS

 

Do you really believe all droplets/aerosols float around intact without evaporating?

Why yes, you really DO believe that all droplets/aerosols float around intact without evaporating... Huh.

Yup, but droplets are not aerosols nor are they viruses.

Who is claiming 'likely' in that case? It's definitely possible, though.

Masks are just as useless now as they were then. The size of viruses hasn't changed. The size of mask pores hasn't changed. People's bad habits re: wearing and caring for them haven't changed.

Keep on preachin' that Church of COVID sermon!

 

No I didn't say all, and it can get complicated as this article shows: Assessing suspension and infectivity times of virus-loaded aerosols involved in airborne transmission | PNAS

All isn't required. It's not a question of no evaporation, it's a question of the quantity of viable virus that a person is exposed to. Zero is ideal, of course, but any reduction in exposure is a reduction in infection likelihood.

Nope. But droplets are significant for being exposed to more virus particles, and droplets can fall onto surfaces much more quickly than small aerosols.

They contain viruses. They are the vehicles of respiratory viruses. Completely desiccated aerosols, or individual viruses, are not the main source of respiratory viral transmission.

Odds will vary by the virus. More infectious viruses tend to require fewer viruses to infect somebody on average. But one virus getting through and causing infection is extremely rare even for very infectious diseases. This phenomenon is very important for reducing transmission.

Here: Minimum infective dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 based on the current evidence: A systematic review - PMC (nih.gov)

Looks like it takes at least a million virus particles to get covid, on average, at least for earlier strains, could be less for omicron.

You're still wrong. I'm not sure where you get your ideas. I find it mind-boggling you ignore things like odds and number of viruses somebody is exposed to as affecting their likelihood of getting infected.

 

Nope, that's you.

I've already told you.

1) Engineering specs of masks.
2) Size of viruses.
3) Basic mathematics.

It's very straightforward.

I find it mind-boggling you outright deny things like mask engineering specs and basic mathematics.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html

"There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”

But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?

“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.

What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?

“They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”

Link to Cochrane study: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

 

I’m aware one of the study authors has unfounded opinions. If you read their actual study, though, it does not say masks don’t work because: “
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.”

more info about the Cochrane review: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/m...pected-group-misinterpreted/story?id=97846561

Here’s a real study on the topic: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119

 

Oh. Who?

 

You quoted him. And yet if you read his study, it doesn't support his assertions. The head of the Cochrane review said as much.

 

Lol...masking didn't work. This was obvious at all points in recent history. It was a brand, a mark, a tribal admission. That is all.

time to be adults, learn from the mistake of masking and move on. Make the world a better place.

 

I heard an interesting analogy a while back -

In the Disney movie Dumbo is given a feather and told it will help him fly. Of course the feather had nothing to do with it, but the elephant flew didn't he?

The mask is a Dumbo Feather. It gives the masked a sense of security so they can walk the streets with normal people. The mask alleviates their fears.

Fear is the tool of control freaks.

 

I will keep this short. People who engage in misrepresentations and falsehoods quoting cochrane library studies on masks and Dr. Tom Jefferson saying masks did not work have been exposed and repudiated as false:

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/s...-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...s-dont-work-against-covid-19/?sh=50d542f81937


The problem with the internet is people who have the preconceived bias masks won't work look for sources they think back up their argument without actually reading the entirety of the source they quote.

Jefferson never said what the anti maskers claimed he did and they quote him falsely and all that does is render their quotings absurd.