The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Economy So Strong That eBay Hard Up For Business

[zrickety]

For anyone hung up on CO2 build up behind your mask:
It's actually a really easy engineering problem. The volume of space between your mask and face is very small, let's say less than 10% of your lung capacity. What this means is that when you inhale, more than 90% of what you breathe comes from outside your mask. So even if there was a high level of CO2 between your mask and face, it doesn't mean you're breathing in a toxic concentration of it. That's why Zrickety's "study" is a load of crap. I have no doubt they measured high CO2 at someone's mouth as they exhaled, but it means nothing.

PROVIDE YOU LINK

 

[Escape Hatch]

Let's see how cherry picking works:

[Masks] To say it will greatly reduce the spread is wrong. COVID particulate size ranges from .06 to 1.4 microns. Based upon CDC data on their page cloth masks stop micron size of 20-30 microns and larger but slow microns aerosols down to 10 microns. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3,14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured

That actually sounds pretty good. Thanks for playing.

Are you really that fucking stupid? It is simple math really. .06 to 1.4 microns is less than (or smaller if you need help) than 10 microns for aerosols or 20-30microns or larger. No cherry picking here you just do not like the science. It is very clear, the virus itself is much smaller than the protection offer in cloth masks which means it can and will get through face coverings.

 

[zrickety]

Are you really that fucking stupid? It is simple math really. .06 to 1.4 microns is less than (or smaller if you need help) than 10 microns for aerosols or 20-30microns or larger. No cherry picking here you just do not like the science. It is very clear, the virus itself is much smaller than the protection offer in cloth masks which means it can and will get through the face coverings.

Already posted a real world study that they don't work. You're fighting with the brain damaged.
https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/

 

[zrickety]

 

[anotero]

View attachment 224149

Watch 'em run in and start screaming: at least Sleepy Joe never owned slaves. 3, 2, ...

 

[GTIfan99]

Correct. People use it enough that they made it acceptable for use again. Nonstandard means it’s not normally used, dear, not invalid. And you should look up the definition yourself instead of leaning to your own understanding for it is a real word.

Welcome to the forum and thread. Virtual high five.

 

[Strange Mud]

Correct. People use it enough that they made it acceptable for use again. Nonstandard means it’s not normally used, dear, not invalid. And you should look up the definition yourself instead of leaning to your own understanding for it is a real word.

Mrs P

This worth reading again, however as new kid one of the many rules in this thread grammar isn't strongly enforced (neither is truth)

Mud

+1 on the welcome

 

[GTIfan99]

Already posted a real world study that they don't work. You're fighting with the brain damaged.
https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/

It was already explained why this study is flawed and meaningless.

Though states like Florida didn't have mask mandates, all the major cities in Florida, you know, where the majority of the population live, had mask mandates.

So the control group is invalid, because the majority of the states population was under mask mandate, even though the state was not.

It was the same in most non mask mandate states, they allowed cities to place the mandates.

You can't have a control group where the majority of the cohort is under the same conditions as the studied cohort.

Those that participate in this study are either incompetent or intentionally misleading.

 

[Subliminal]

Democrats: We need to seize our citizen's (semiauto) guns
Democrats: Yo taliban, enjoy these free military-grade rifles and Blackhawks!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430600865757401091

 

[Turbongr]

Excellent work team. Going to have to put in some OT this week.

 

[torga]

You're both right, but you're also both wrong. There's a big difference between protection for the user and protection for others; surgeons aren't wearing masks for their protection, it's for the patient. Surgical masks are actually a great example of something that has little protection factor for the wearer, but is effective at protecting someone else in the room. There's also a big difference between a cheap, single layer, polyester gaiter and an N95 (Unreal has been trying to point this out for like 1,000 pages). I am under no illusion that my cloth mask, over my bearded face is providing me with any real protection, but it will greatly reduce any spread of virus if I happen to be a carrier. Particle size isn't super relevant if the particles are borne in a suspension; if the mask can stop or slow the droplets or vapor, it's helping.

Thank you for this explanation. I was already cooking up my own in response to the mask comment when I came up on your comment.

To say it will greatly reduce the spread is wrong. COVID particulate size ranges from .06 to 1.4 microns. Based upon CDC data on their page cloth masks stop micron size of 20-30 microns and larger but slow microns aerosols down to 10 microns. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3,14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.

Are you really that fucking stupid? It is simple math really. .06 to 1.4 microns is less than (or smaller if you need help) than 10 microns for aerosols or 20-30microns or larger. No cherry picking here you just do not like the science. It is very clear, the virus itself is much smaller than the protection offer in cloth masks which means it can and will get through face coverings.

This is what happens when someone half understands something and gets adamant. Unfortunately, most of the thread's arguments stem from half understandings and half truths, such as this.

Yes, you are right. 0.06-1.4um is smaller than 20-30um. But saying that the masks don't stop these droplets at all, is incorrect. If you shot a single COVID droplet through the gaps in the cloth weave, then yes, it would slip right through -- nothin' but net. But a cough or a sneeze or even a simple breath is so much more complicated than that. It's an incredibly turbulent expulsion of gas, and droplets will get caught on the mask fibers. Some droplets will slip through, but cloth masks do a decent job at catching a large amount of them -- N95s and PM2.5 filters do an even better job. Even the source you yourself posted says that a multi-layer cloth mask can catch up to 50-70% of fine droplets and up to 50% of ultrafine droplets, <1um. At that microscopic level, it isn't like a single fish slipping through a gap in a net. At the micron level, each individual cloth fiber looks like giant, snarling seaweed trap and the tiny particles do stick to the fibers when they come in contact -- they do not bounce off. No one ever said that masks completely stop COVID droplets from escaping -- not a single person with a medical degree has ever said this. The entire point is to inhibit the spread, which masks are proven to do. 30%-50% of droplets escaped is markedly better than 100% of them escaping, wouldn't you agree? Masks work when we ALL wear them. Masks are not for personal protection, they're for protection of others.

 

[torga]

Yes, oftentimes meds are tested and ultimately approved to treat a different condition - but most real Ivermectin studies show that it is dangerous when used to treat COVID and, when it does help, it doesn't do much.

Please show me study data that shows this, I would love to see it. So far all I see is generic warnings that come with every drug warning people against toxic overdose and other blahblah that would make any drug dangerous. The only truly data driven negative studies I have seen are when people were given significantly too much Ivermectin. Talking 100s of milligrams at a time instead of a single digit dosages that equaled a little over a dozen.

I'll play along with your argument, lots of drugs "don't do much" when taken alone. Ivermectin is part of a treatment protocol that includes up to 10 other drugs or therapies.

The studies that I have read, even the ones that argue against the use of ivermectin and flat out claim it "doesn't do much" or "has no significant benefit" also had their data contradict their opinion. Patients taking Ivermectin improved or recovered on average 48 hours sooner than those on a placebo. I would challenge you to find a study that had prophylactic use as part of their Ivermectin regime, and came to a insignificant conclusion with their data.

We may lack enough study data to know the reality of Ivermectin, but slandering it as dangerous or a single use "horse dewormer" in the meantime is no different than anti-vaxxers saying vaccines are dangerous because we lack the study data. You guys are falling from the same tree. I will again remind you, Pfizer is working on a protease inhibitor as we speak. IVM and HCQ are protease inhibitors.

Ok, but back to the real meat & potatoes of the IVM argument... which is the mind-boggling suggestion that a drug regimen based around a poorly studied drug, plus 10 other drugs/therapies is a better course of action than a preventative measure that is FREE, and whose effect on humans has been studied much more thoroughly than IVM.

If I recall correctly, the only study I read that showed any significant benefits of IVM against COVID was done in vitro. When studies were conducted in vivo, they found that the small dose that's safe on humans and worked before in the petri dish... did next to nothing.

 

[torga]

Go find one post where I suggested you should just gobble up ivermectin and skip your vaccines. This isn't the meat and potatoes of any argument, it's a black-or-white fallacy that is used to rob other preventative treatments of any value.

Fair enough, but you do agree that the vast majority of people standing behind IVM and asking for it are those who think that the vaccines are dangerous, right? These people consider it a substitute. I apologize for implying that you're that narrow-minded.

 

[anotero]

Democrats: We need to seize our citizen's (semiauto) guns
Democrats: Yo taliban, enjoy these free military-grade rifles and Blackhawks!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430600865757401091

I would make grocery runs in a Bradley, but the city wouldn't be happy with the messed up roads... wait, the roads are already messed up. *opens Kabul classifieds*

 

[torga]

I think this data is not useful as a preventative care treatment. We could argue about it, but having the answer to that question wouldn't make either of us more healthy or likely or surviving covid19. I don't understand the human obsession with picking a side here, neither of us would be better off for it.

We may not agree on everything, but you are very sensible.