XCR Forum banner

41 - 60 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,125 Posts
Absolutely not the same thing. One is fact and quantifiable by data. The other, "new normal", is human perception. Furthermore, continued mask wearing wouldn't be necessary if not for the anti-vaxxers and fools who prefer tales by faceless internet/basement prophets instead of people who have dedicated their lives to studying and knowing about pandemics, down to the molecular level.

Another case in point. AIDS was once considered an epidemic and threat of it was the then "new normal". Now that science and medicine has gotten a handle on that virus, just like Ebola, the "new normal" for it is that it is rarely mentioned and rarely top-of-mind for anyone.
No RCT shows that cloth or surgical masks stop the spread of viruses...in fact, 14 RCTs show the exact opposite (on CDC's website) AND don't work for source control either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Who was responsible for the AIDs panic?

I don't wear a mask. I won't get the vaccine. Fuck anyone that tries to force their opinion onto me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,125 Posts
Who was responsible for the AIDs panic?

I don't wear a mask. I won't get the vaccine. Fuck anyone that tries to force their opinion onto me.
Your body, your choice.

I am not responsible for your health, you are not responsible for mine.

The moment we start laying claim to ownership over one another's bodies and actions is the moment we lose any semblance of individual liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasChris

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,770 Posts
Who was responsible for the AIDs panic?

I don't wear a mask. I won't get the vaccine. Fuck anyone that tries to force their opinion onto me.
I'm getting to the point that I'm skeptical of most major label food in the grocery store.....if I was a betting man, I'd say in 10 years, I've prolly got a garden and some livestock and if I didn't kill it or grow it, it doesn't pass these lips......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Furthermore, continued mask wearing wouldn't be necessary if not for the anti-vaxxers and fools...
Once everyone who wants to be vaccinated is vaccinated, wearing a mask is no longer necessary. Period.

If you choose not to be vaccinated, when you have the opportunity to do so, then it's your choice to take the risk.

There is absolutely zero reason to require anyone to wear a mask once it is simply a personal choice on whether to be vaccinated. People who choose to be in the higher risk (non-vaccinated) group, can choose to wear a mask, or not, as they prefer. People who choose to be in the lower risk (vaccinated) group, have reduced their risk to the level of other illnesses, and forcing people to wear a mask to reduce the risk of the flu (or the common cold) isn't reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Furthermore, continued mask wearing wouldn't be necessary if not for the anti-vaxxers and fools who prefer tales by faceless internet/basement prophets instead of people who have dedicated their lives to studying and knowing about pandemics, down to the molecular level.
You are indeed fortunate that you have not experienced first hand the suffering brought on by a vaccine reaction. When my oldest son was 15 months old, my wife took him to the pediatrician for his MMR vaccine. Oddly enough, while in the waiting room she read an article about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. She ask his pediatrician about it and he assured her that the claim had been thoroughly debunked. Our son had his checkup and got the vaccine. Keep in mind that to this point his development was completely normal. Later that night he started getting a fever and by the next day it was extremely high. All he did was scream while my wife held him. It was so bad that we had to take him to the emergency room. The doctor there told us that it was likely his body reacting to the vaccine, but it would be fine. Soon after this his language began to regress and he developed chronic diarrhea. The intestinal pain was so bad that he'd bend himself over objects in an attempt to ease the pain. The diarrhea was explosive and would cause burns to his skin. Over the course of the next year he lost virtually all of his language and began to intentionally injury himself. We went to more doctors that I can count in an attempt to figure out what was wrong with him. Eventually, we figured out ourselves that he was autistic and began treatments. No doctors where we live could offer any help with his intestinal pain and diarrhea. Eventually, we found a doctor out of state that was able to outline a course of treatment that significantly reduced the pain and diarrhea. Of course this whole time we were wondering if the MMR vaccine had caused our son to become autistic. However, we were assured by our son's pediatrician and countless other medical professionals that there was absolutely no truth to a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I'm an engineer, so the concept that correlation doesn't equal causation is easy for me to understand. When our second son hit fifteen months, we took him to the doctor for his checkup and MMR vaccine. That very night he also developed a fever. When my wife was holding him and he began having his first seizure, I knew immediately that everything his pediatrician and the other medical professionals had told us about the MMR vaccine being perfectly safe was a bunch of crap. Fortunately, my younger son didn't slip away in to autism. Unfortunately, he developed a lesser form of the same intestinal bowel disease that my older son has. They both literally suffer every day because of this. My younger son is now eighteen and it literally takes him 30 minutes to poop, which only happens once every few days. My older son is now twenty. He mostly can't control when he poops. This morning he literally crapped in his underwear right after getting out of bed. As you can imagine, I'd do virtually anything to be able to turn back the hands of time and undo our decision to put blind faith in people in the medical field. I don't believe that the people who told us the MMR vaccine was perfectly safe didn't believe that it was. I think that they believed what they were told by other medical professionals. As it turns out, there have been multiple studies that have found a statistically significant correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism as well as a form of intestinal bowel disease. The CDC generated such data and then hid it from the public. It was only able to be brought out because whistle blowers in the CDC exposed the truth.

So big picture, what's the problem here? The problem is that the FDA and CDC who are supposed to regulate the vaccine manufacturers are actually working to promote the use of vaccines. The relationship between the vaccine manufacturers and regulators is very incestuous. Instead of supplying the public with all of the available data regarding particular vaccines, they hide vaccine reactions because they know if people think there's a risk at all, many will not get the vaccines. Note what happens when people object or even question the safety of a vaccine. They are not provided scientific data pointing out the risks and rewards. Instead they are told that they don't care about their children and are being selfish. I believe that every person has a right to know the full risk and reward regarding vaccines. Furthermore, no person should be compelled to vaccinate himself or a child if they choose not to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,125 Posts
I'm getting to the point that I'm skeptical of most major label food in the grocery store.....if I was a betting man, I'd say in 10 years, I've prolly got a garden and some livestock and if I didn't kill it or grow it, it doesn't pass these lips......
Probably REAL smart. Anyone seen the fertility study out saying sperm counts could drop to zero by 2045 due to all the plastics, hormones, detergents, etc. we're exposed to?

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
People who don't understand economics will think that falling reproduction rates are a positive.

Unfortunately, the most valuable thing on earth is human ingenuity, and humans are required for that. Less people means lower average human welfare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,125 Posts
People who don't understand economics will think that falling reproduction rates are a positive.

Unfortunately, the most valuable thing on earth is human ingenuity, and humans are required for that. Less people means lower average human welfare.
Agree....was thankful for that fee.org article you posted on that very topic!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,770 Posts
You are indeed fortunate that you have not experienced first hand the suffering brought on by a vaccine reaction. When my oldest son was 15 months old, my wife took him to the pediatrician for his MMR vaccine....contd
............man...............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Thanks guys. I'm fortunate that given the situation I do well financially, have a strong & very determined wife and great family support. Most in the same situation don't. When someone has a vaccine injury, it's extremely difficult to get compensated financially. You have to act quick and basically have to prove the injury beyond all doubt in the special vaccine court. That's right, regular laws of consequential damages don't apply to the vaccine manufacturers. They have a special court with special judges. If vaccines are so safe, why do the manufacturers get special courts with stricter limitations on their liability? If you take a medication and suffer an injury, there is no special court. Once my second son had seizures after receiving the MMR, two years had already past for my first son which was beyond the statute of limitations. Therefore, we have to foot the bill to take care of him for the rest of our lives and beyond. That said, I don't want anyone to ever take pity on me. I'm good because I can deal with it. My older son and those who suffer similar conditions are the ones who need our grace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,770 Posts
Absolutely not the same thing. One is fact and quantifiable by data. The other, "new normal", is human perception. Furthermore, continued mask wearing wouldn't be necessary if not for the anti-vaxxers and fools who prefer tales by faceless internet/basement prophets instead of people who have dedicated their lives to studying and knowing about pandemics, down to the molecular level.
F, I have no leanings one way or another beyond the tips of others noses, but I'm certainly willing to entertain your ideas if you're willing to flesh them out a bit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Even CNBC is starting to report that masks are useless.


Masks (as mandated) do nothing to prevent the spread of the virus. They are probably a contributing factor in getting people sick. Properly fitting respirators may help prevent you from getting sick. If you are truly paranoid about this virus, wear a 3M 7500 half-face respirator with hard plastic P100 cartridges. The respirator is something that would actually do something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #56 ·
Even CNBC is starting to report that masks are useless.
I didn't read the CNBC article, because in general I find CNBC to be a load of useless drivel.

I do, however, read the actual medical (peer reviewed journal article) studies.

it's not fair to say that masks are useless.

My takeaway from the actual studies was;

a) Social distancing indoors is useless. Time of exposure is a much more important factor. it doesn't matter if you're within 6 feet or 60 feet. if you're in the same airspace, you are going to be exposed.

b) Masking is an effective way to reduce contagion indoors.

c) Effective indoor air filtration is just as effective as masking at preventing transmission. With high flow filtration and sterilization of indoor air, masking may not be necessary (and social distancing isn't helpful in either case).

The real lessons are (a) indoor social distancing is pointless, (b) indoor air filtration and sterilization can almost eliminate spread (at least as effective as masks, and much better than social distancing), and (c) without good filtration and sterilization (which most buildings don't currently have), masking is still the most effective way to prevent indoor transmission.


I am totally against government mask mandates. But the media coverage of scientific research articles is almost 100% spin these days. it's important to read the underlying studies themselves.

Read the studies (not the media spin) and decide for yourself:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,125 Posts
I didn't read the CNBC article, because in general I find CNBC to be a load of useless drivel.

I do, however, read the actual medical (peer reviewed journal article) studies.

it's not fair to say that masks are useless.

My takeaway from the actual studies was;

a) Social distancing indoors is useless. Time of exposure is a much more important factor. it doesn't matter if you're within 6 feet or 60 feet. if you're in the same airspace, you are going to be exposed.

b) Masking is an effective way to reduce contagion indoors.

c) Effective indoor air filtration is just as effective as masking at preventing transmission. With high flow filtration and sterilization of indoor air, masking may not be necessary (and social distancing isn't helpful in either case).

The real lessons are (a) indoor social distancing is pointless, (b) indoor air filtration and sterilization can almost eliminate spread (at least as effective as masks, and much better than social distancing), and (c) without good filtration and sterilization (which most buildings don't currently have), masking is still the most effective way to prevent indoor transmission.


I am totally against government mask mandates. But the media coverage of scientific research articles is almost 100% spin these days. it's important to read the underlying studies themselves.

Read the studies (not the media spin) and decide for yourself:

Nowhere in that article is there a reference to an actual RCT about "mask" efficacy for reducing viral spread. Without an RCT, you have nothing. There's a reason it's the gold standard of scientific testing.

The conclusion about masks that, "Finally, the fact that face mask directives have been more effective than either lockdowns or social distancing in controlling the spread of COVID-19 (22, 33) is consistent with indoor airborne transmission as the primary driver of the global pandemic" isn't substantiated by Florida's infection rates versus California's. One had lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates....the other did not....yet their rates of infection were almost identical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #58 ·
Sean, are you looking at the CNBC article or the Bazant/Bush article?


Unfortunately, this whole situation is basically a data apocalypse, so I'm not convinced I'd trust anyone's data completely.

For example, you could argue that the Florida experience of low transmission was caused by the lack of lockdown, which let people get out in the sun and wind (the best environment for preventing transmission). And, that the California experience was probably the result of lockdowns (closing outdoor spaces--WTaF?) forcing people into indoor (high transmission) environments.

I'm really not convinced we'll ever have the data to know for sure. There are just too many vested interests looking to protect their own power in this situation.

FWIW, there are several good studies on mask use in the pre-covid environment cited in the (copious) references.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Just a few problems with testing "masks":

Everything in use is home made or manufactured to no specification or standards. Material type, weave, thickness, pore size. From granny using 40 year old remnants to the infomercial hocking Chinese made stuff made of moisture wicking fabric (touted as "highly breathable", meaning it is absolutely worthless for air filtration).

None of these things actually seal over the face. The best have gathers and wrinkles across the cheeks and gaps at the sides of the nose. Those are called "leaks". Air flow seeks the path of least resistance, meaning it will go around the fabric whenever possible.
So is the test to draw air through the fabric held in a apparatus that is sealed around the edges, so that 100% of the air tested is drawn through the fabric? Or does the test use a mannequin head, with the testing ports plumbed to the mouth and nose positions, and the fabric assembly tied on to match the actual real world condition?

And neither of those gets into the real world condition of the nose sticking out over the top, or the whole thing pulled down below the mouth, providing maximum protection to the chin. There's a reason everyone is pulling these things up with their potentially contaminated hands, all the time. Any test of actual effectiveness has to include that, also.

By the way: Actual medical equipment requires hazardous waste disposal. These things are supposed to be filtering viruses out of the air. Every one of them is potentially highly concentrated, if it actually does work.
So why no hazmat disposal mandates?

And then there is the issue of the eyes. The surface of the eyes draw in oxygen. Anything that touches the surface goes directly into the blood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,770 Posts
....to pick a nit....Loon stated as mandated.

Between putting the mask on, touching a bunch of door knobs and other stuff, taking the mask off, not sterilizing it....leaving them in vehicles and in pockets....not washing them. Not washing hands before touching them...every single time....
 
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
Top