Is it? What did Fauci say?
No… Why would there need to be a deflection.
I knew it was about medical masks… one can easily extrapolate that other physical barriers over one’s face holes are better than nothing with limiting the spread of droplets.
It isn’t hard to connect those dots.
The mean man said something wrong over a year ago and now we can’t believe anything any scientist says ever again.
Oh… and look at this… this study of 76 people in Bangladesh show that heart worm pills could work.
It is a wild way to live.
Yet you didn’t mention it.
That is amazing. Now science requires me to “extrapolate”? To assume? Last I looked last year there were 100s of thousands of COVID studies already cataloged at MIT. And I need to “extrapolate”?
Because all “masks” are not created equal. Did Fauci specify “medical masks” or did he say “cloth face coverings”?
You are putting your faith in people unable to admit they have ever been wrong. With a blind faith in “data”. Who are unable to look up from a microscope and see what is happening. That group may have a bigger problem with confirmation bias than any other.
And Fauci has ulterior motives.
They aren’t bad people, their hubris blinds them.
2 Likes
You yourself admitted it is a possibility.
They followed the “acientific method”?
Fauci admitted he was wrong on this. And what do you purport to be his ulterior motive?
I said that the effect looks small.
That is shown in the P value.
Crazy that a small study is accepted but a meta analysis of sixteen different ones is not.
It’s pretty funny.
1 Like
Now that…. That right there is some funny ■■■■■
That mean man was in charge. We were hanging on his every word as a country. He didn’t have the luxury of “getting it wrong”.
And it wasn’t that he got it wrong, it was intentional. He admitted it and said he would do it again. He followed doctrine.
Do you believe the scientists in Bangladesh?
1 Like
Why?
…
It’s really hard for me to understand why people downplay severity of the virus, the efficacy of masks and especially the vaccines, but champion questionable therapies live ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Why?
1 Like
I didn’t say I accepted it or not the 16.
Now you’re building strawmen.
Efficacy of which “masks”?
Not doing this.
1 Like
I don’t blame you.
The correct term is “cloth face coverings”. I do not dispute the efficacy of N95 masks.
Preventing the spread of the coronavirus - Harvard Health.
Researchers at Duke University created a simple setup that allowed them to count the number of droplet particles released when people spoke the phrase “Stay healthy, people” five times in a row. First, the study participants spoke without a mask, and then they repeated the same words, each time wearing one of 14 different types of face masks and coverings.
As expected, medical grade N95 masks performed best, meaning that the fewest number of droplets got through. They were followed by surgical masks. Several masks made of polypropylene, a cotton/propylene blend, and 2-layer cotton masks sewn in different styles also performed well.
In a lab. Now take it to the street and add in all the other factors that impact.
How well? That’s not sciency.
2 Likes
If we give the relative rating of an N95 mask as 100, what would the rating of the mask be if we put a 2 mm hole in it? Would it be zero?
I have found numerous studies along those lines - largely controlled studies over brief time frames typically with brand new masks. That’s why I question their relevance to large sociological settings involving many uncontrolled variables. That’s what prompted me to consider these questions:
- How long do the virus particles stay on or in a mask?
- How effective are masks that are repeatedly used?
- What percent of virus particles are trapped in a mask via casual conversation and breathing vs coughing or sneezing?
what other factors?
