What percentage of COVID emitted by a person actually stays in a mask and for how long? Sub sets of this question would be during the following activities:
Also
I’m not personally aware of any type of exhaustive studies using COVID positive subjects. I believe that the answers to these types of questions would explain why public mask mandates were largely ineffective. Agree?
This is 126 proof Alberta rye. At a 60% concentrate, alcohol kills COVID on contact. This is 63% so I recommend everyone drink this for medicinal purposes and then the answer to this question for all of us will be zero.
Cheers! 
That is the 64 million dollar question everyone should ponder. I am vaccinated with booster, wear masks most of the time when in public and still at risk of getting Chinese Wuhan Virus. One of my family members unvacinnate and mostly maskless just secessfully used ivermectin.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the time people are wearing masks they are simply breathing and talking. So how much COVID is emitted during such activities and how much stays in the various masks people wear. I suspect there’s a lot of COVID that escapes during 8-10 hours of mask wearing.
Do you think that maybe low grade or weak COVID infections will help with natural immunity? We cannot isolate ourselves from the virus.
Remember all the South Pacific Islanders who were exposed to colonialist viruses the were no problems for the colonialist.
The depopulation of Pacific islands during the 16th to 18th centuries is a striking example of historical mass mortality due to infectious disease is well documented
They were effective, to what degree is the question.
I don’t know.
Allan
I believe another area of agreement is that none of these masks were designed to contain a virus for 8 to 10 hours a day.
Not even close.
Infection rate of the top 4 states (by population):
CA/blue - 0.222
TX/red - 0.213
FL/red - 0.257
NY/blue - 0.255
The math disagrees!
PS - NJ is 0.240, TX did the best, even better than NJ.
When were they effective and what happened to make the ineffective?
Your statistic is a little misleading. That is is not FL=.257%; that’s 25.7%.
Not saying you said otherwise, but just as a clarification. While I grant you that TX did better than any of the others, there are 16 worse states per capita before you get to FL and NY, all of them red except RI, which is the worst in the US at 33%, and DE, which is only slightly worse than NY (25.88%).
Source:U.S. states with the highest COVID rates 2023 | Statista
The Texas map is a little unexpected, I think, because the more rural areas are doing far worse than the urban centers.
Source: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from Mayo Clinic - Mayo Clinic
That actually bolsters the argument that the public health measures were ineffective.
Pretty much the same result everywhere that separated nursing home infected from the uninfected.
Democrats politicized covid in an election year to justify underhanded methods.
Period. And from there it was only chaos and confusion and missteps and accusations. And that led to wackos on both sides gathering around them their own cults of mistrust and ignorance and blind obedience.
Wear a mask or you are killing us.
Don’t wear a mask or you are surrendering to tyranny.
The airplane masked bum fights were the best.
It all needs to stop now.
We just feel the torment as the lease ends.
Cloth and paper masks were just silly and another fake news story the left fell for over head over heels.
Screaming at people and worse because they were all ginned up on fake news. Like Russian Collusion.
Believing the dem media after they’ve lied to you over and over and over is a form of insanity.
Good analogy. Just watched the fellowship again.
Then how can you make that claim?
I purposely didn’t put it in percentage because I left it as a rate, i.e. current case count per population. I also focused on the most populated states since theoretically that should provide more accurate data; more people = more data. CA is slightly worse than TX, while FL & NY are virtually identical. Nonetheless, whether looking it as a rate or as a percentage then one must determine what percentage of higher cases is a significant statistical difference.
Yes, I understood that. The clarification was for those that might seize on the apparently low number and claim that it was a percentage.
