Bad News Thread

The evidence is that cloth or surgical masks, on the recipient, help a little. Cloth or surgical masks, on the source/infected person, help a lot.

But that isn’t the answer you want, so you keep returning to “what if you’re on an airplane”. It asks the wrong question, as a rhetorical device to get the wrong answer.

It’s a silly question. If you are unvaccinated, then you really should not be on an airplane during a respiratory pandemic. The risk to you and others is too high.

There is no real need to ask “what kind of mask should I wear while riding in the aluminum germ tube?”. The simpler answer is ”don’t get in the aluminum germ tube if you don’t need to.”

Then you can go back to the right question. Do cloth or surgical masks reduce transmission from me to others by a meaningful amount? (10% or more)

The answer to that question is a clear yes.

Keep preaching. Admire the faith.
 
It's not an attempt to score cheap political points. The statement itself was imprecise and ignored the science. He didn't say "it's possible that certain masks such as an N95 might even be more effective than some of the vaccines in the pipeline in preventing illness, particularly since those vaccines may come in substantially less than 100% effective." It was a sales job that masks are so good they are even better than vaccines. It was an oversell, for the purposes outlined above.

"I threw back in the face of the school safety officer that everyone was masked and the cdc director had just said masks were better than vaccines. It was a super sweet moment. "

That's a cheap political point.
 
"I threw back in the face of the school safety officer that everyone was masked and the cdc director had just said masks were better than vaccines. It was a super sweet moment. "

That's a cheap political point.

No it's not. I couldn't care less about the guys politics. It won me the argument because he had no rebuttal to it and was totally pinned least he be accused of not following the science. They did not make kiddo take the COVID test for the 1 hour.
 
Keep preaching. Admire the faith.
I see that you are reduced to evidence-free responses, like “keep preaching”. That’s because you have no respectable articles to point to.

Take a look at the evidence.




You’ve been giving people bad medical advice for 15 months now. You can stop.
 
I see that you are reduced to evidence-free responses, like “keep preaching”. That’s because you have no respectable articles to point to.

Take a look at the evidence.




You’ve been giving people bad medical advice for 15 months now. You can stop.

weve posted round and round before. Nothings going to shake your faith. But as to medical advice, I’ve pointed out in the past the micro effects are probably greater than the macro effects. Nothing is going to stop you from getting the virus on that plane even if the 2 of you seated next to each other are wearing n95s. It may stop you from getting it if you are 10 rows back but it’s reduced your low chances already. On a macro level, for all the reasons we’ve gone round and round on, they don’t do much. And in any case given the cdc advice on the vaccinated and masking, aren’t you the one currently giving out advice contra to the established science? Oh I forgot. It’s not advice...it’s preaching. :)
 
No it's not. I couldn't care less about the guys politics. It won me the argument because he had no rebuttal to it and was totally pinned least he be accused of not following the science. They did not make kiddo take the COVID test for the 1 hour.

Please continue.
 
The evidence is that cloth or surgical masks, on the recipient, help a little. Cloth or surgical masks, on the source/infected person, help a lot.

But that isn’t the answer you want, so you keep returning to “what if you’re on an airplane”. It asks the wrong question, as a rhetorical device to get the wrong answer.

It’s a silly question. If you are unvaccinated, then you really should not be on an airplane during a respiratory pandemic. The risk to you and others is too high.

There is no real need to ask “what kind of mask should I wear while riding in the aluminum germ tube?”. The simpler answer is ”don’t get in the aluminum germ tube if you don’t need to.”

Then you can go back to the right question. Do cloth or surgical masks reduce transmission from me to others by a meaningful amount? (10% or more)

The answer to that question is a clear yes.
You working for OSHA now?
 
weve posted round and round before. Nothings going to shake your faith. But as to medical advice, I’ve pointed out in the past the micro effects are probably greater than the macro effects. Nothing is going to stop you from getting the virus on that plane even if the 2 of you seated next to each other are wearing n95s. It may stop you from getting it if you are 10 rows back but it’s reduced your low chances already. On a macro level, for all the reasons we’ve gone round and round on, they don’t do much. And in any case given the cdc advice on the vaccinated and masking, aren’t you the one currently giving out advice contra to the established science? Oh I forgot. It’s not advice...it’s preaching. :)
Airplanes again? That's because your argument fails anywhere outside the aluminum germ tube.

I disagree with CDC on policy, not science. CDC and I both claim that all unvaccinated people should mask up. I just think that, as a matter of policy, there is no way to draw a line between vax and unvax. The only way to get masks on the unvaccinated is if everyone wear masks. CDC believes in the honor system. I don't.

Crush proves my point on this. Some people will lie about their vax status to get out of wearing masks. Crush already did exactly that. Not everyone is honorable.
 
As has been explained to you before here, the "masks better than vaccines" comment came in a discussion involving a certain quality mask and a certain quality vaccine. In that circumstance the comment was correct. As it turns out, the vaccine ix much more effective than had been hypothesized in the discussion, thus tipping the judgment. Those who took the time to look at the whole context then and now understood what it meant. Now we are left with just a few who ignore the math and science of the discussion in an attempt to score cheap political points.
Masks, as they are in their current form, will never be better than a good vaccine because people wear them.
 
I see that you are reduced to evidence-free responses, like “keep preaching”. That’s because you have no respectable articles to point to.

Take a look at the evidence.




You’ve been giving people bad medical advice for 15 months now. You can stop.
You've been ignoring at least 50 years of virus history. Shall I retrieve your mask mea culpa?
 
I see that you are reduced to evidence-free responses, like “keep preaching”. That’s because you have no respectable articles to point to.

Take a look at the evidence.




You’ve been giving people bad medical advice for 15 months now. You can stop.
1623200879327.png
Yahoo needs to explain how, if "lockdown" states are doing better economically than "loose" states, why there are 21 states in the "weak restrictions, strong recovery" quadrant while there are 2 in the "strong restrictions, strong recovery" quadrant...and they barely made the cut
 
1623201039474.png
Coincidentally, April 24th was also when hospitalizations peaked and declined for these age groups. Why did the CDC end their study right at this point, I wonder?
 
1623201203401.png

"'Rising hospitalizations' also misses very important context - hospitalizations were rising in all age groups around this time frame in the spring -- even the most-vaccinated cohort (> 65) -- and at faster rates. Yet they use this study to justify why teen vaccinations are needed."
 
(TW note: In case you can't see the key in the graph below, the orange line on the top is 65 and over, the blue line is the overall number, and that dashed line at the bottom that barely registers at all is the terrible apocalypse of hospitalizations among the 12-17 age group that is supposed to make their vaccinations urgent.)

1623201332320.png

"Something in this MMWR study that is worth mentioning, though: almost HALF (172 out of 376) of 'COVID' hospitalizations in this age group were likely there for something other than COVID -- further supporting the claim that child COVID hospitalization numbers are inflated.

"Additionally, of the 172 children admitted to the hospital, but not for COVID, over 44% were there for psychiatric care. This seems like a pretty alarming number, but we'd need to see what the baseline is for psychiatric admissions of adolescents.

"It's becoming increasingly obvious the CDC is not an unbiased, agenda-free scientific organization. Just a month ago it was found they let teachers unions influence school reopening guidance. Their reputation rightfully continues to quickly deteriorate."
 
(TW note: In case you can't see the key in the graph below, the orange line on the top is 65 and over, the blue line is the overall number, and that dashed line at the bottom that barely registers at all is the terrible apocalypse of hospitalizations among the 12-17 age group that is supposed to make their vaccinations urgent.)

View attachment 10942

"Something in this MMWR study that is worth mentioning, though: almost HALF (172 out of 376) of 'COVID' hospitalizations in this age group were likely there for something other than COVID -- further supporting the claim that child COVID hospitalization numbers are inflated.

"Additionally, of the 172 children admitted to the hospital, but not for COVID, over 44% were there for psychiatric care. This seems like a pretty alarming number, but we'd need to see what the baseline is for psychiatric admissions of adolescents.

"It's becoming increasingly obvious the CDC is not an unbiased, agenda-free scientific organization. Just a month ago it was found they let teachers unions influence school reopening guidance. Their reputation rightfully continues to quickly deteriorate."
Speaking of teachers unions..
 
Back
Top