Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

A little science about those face masks


Recommended Posts

(1) Side effects were predicted for the vaccines and found during tests, but nobody knew the extent or exact ones that would follow after mass so no surprises there. 

(2) A % of efficacy was given for each individual vaccine and has been pretty much borne out. No surprises there.

(3) Of course all sources of information have to be examined and filtered through one's own ability to glean facts and data. But, the US Government and the Press have for many years been excellent sources of factual information that have saved countless lives. They both have also provided false and conflicting statements at times that have proven to be disastrous.. For one to say they never use those sources is either false, stupid or arrogant. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, MC, I'm not joking.  In several posts, you have cited sources of your information that hardly any of us have ever heard of, let alone relied upon.  I am suggesting you quote sources that we can usually agree are as reliable as can be hoped on this highly charged topic.

Simple logic would dictate that in a situation where a highly contagious and dangerous disease is going around, we should use all the means suggested by the official medical "experts" to avoid contracting them. Common sense would dictate using clean masks and avoiding crowded venues.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gringal said:

No, MC, I'm not joking.  In several posts, you have cited sources of your information that hardly any of us have ever heard of, let alone relied upon.  I am suggesting you quote sources that we can usually agree are as reliable as can be hoped on this highly charged topic.

Simple logic would dictate that in a situation where a highly contagious and dangerous disease is going around, we should use all the means suggested by the official medical "experts" to avoid contracting them. Common sense would dictate using clean masks and avoiding crowded venues.

 

If I quoted sources you all like they would all be of one persuasion and we both know that.  Rather I go to professional sources like the last one that are heavily documented and present you the opportunity to go directly to the source material and read it independently.  I do that often to make sure the reference document is quoting the sources accurately.   I'm finding that foreign sources in general tend to be much more rigorous and much less political. 

IMO the "science" NOB has been for the most part so heavily politicized both pro and con as to make it useless and misleading.  I don't pay much attention to it for that reason.

I place far more store in what the actual practicing physicians who are treating covid patients have to say on this topic, as opposed to the political "doctors" who wouldn't know which end of the stethoscope to use on a patient.  It is interesting that while the former have told us for some time from direct experience there are treatments that can really help with covid, the latter politicized same and caused more people to die or get very sick than was necessary.  

Bottom line:  Short of using real professional masks in the proscribed professional manner one is going to get little real protection in a situation where you are in prolonged close contact with other people, if one or more have covid.  That means N95 masks worn and then disposed of in a sanitary manner after relatively short usage.  I seriously doubt this happens with any frequency, fi at all, among the general public. 

Similarly, in my readings I see a high level of consensus that walking by someone on the street who isn't wearing a mask poses any real risk.  Over and over in the literature you see the term "prolonged contact" as a major determinant of catching covid from someone else.

One had better just avoid the former situations entirely until further notice.  For sure, wearing the porous cloth mask out in public alone or while driving your car alone is not only silly, it is meaningless and probably not great for one's personal health if some of the "experts" are to be believed. 

An overblown belief in amateur masking is bad for the general community as it causes people to take risks they shouldn't be taking and thereby raising the risk for the people they come in contact with.  

I only have to look across the street for an example of this.  Hanging out in dance bars with or without a mask is playing Covid Roulette.  The data are clear on this.

Fortunately, we live in a place where it is easy to maintain distance, shop at low traffic times, eat outside with wide spacing between tables, walk outside without coming into prolonged contact with anyone else, and breath a lot of open air and enjoy healthy sunshine.   I believe that is why our local covid numbers are incredibly low. 

They are not low because the fear ridden or virtue obsessed won't walk alone on the street or drive alone in their cars without their porous cloth mask on.  

The mask myth becomes personally and collectively dangerous when people are fooled into thinking they can wear said porous cloth masks to bars, crowded restaurants, any public gathering and contact that lasts more than a very short time, and think they are protected from covid.  This is exactly why we get this "blip" in cases during holiday periods where there is a lot more prolonged public gathering.

Interesting though, despite predictions of great doom and gloom over the past major holiday period around Easter, the case increase was pretty limited and as usual mainly in urbanized settings.  However now I see in the local news that a number of variations are surfacing in PV and other cities and no one is certain if the vaccines will protect from them. 

This is going to be with us a long time which is why I think we need to separate fact from feel good fiction and be fully aware of the real world limitations in the usage of amateur masks by the public when it comes to covid.

I'll be happy to continue this discussion via PM or in person (socially distanced of course) with anyone who wishes to do so.  There are more references where these come from and new and credible information continues to emerge.  I like that second one because it is being periodically updated as the participants obtain more data.

i suspect those who think mask skeptics are "super spreaders" will not be in contact.  Nevertheless I'll have a friendly wave for you and make sure we are at least 10 feet apart for the 3 seconds it takes to walk past each other.  :D 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, AndyPanda said:

Wow. Double zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You know what bores me? Unbelievably long personal screeds, especially when they contribute nothing. Like your comment.

But what you just wrote is a serious contribution......you are not polite.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AndyPanda said:

There is nothing impolite about what I wrote, and since you already trashed this thread, I see no harm in responding to your unwarranted baloney.

Don't know what you are talking about.  I just said if it what the other poster wrote bores you, you are not obliged to read or respond.  No trashing or baloney. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zeb said:

Don't know what you are talking about.  I just said if it what the other poster wrote bores you, you are not obliged to read or respond.  No trashing or baloney. 

Don't how that is trashing anything.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, AndyPanda said:

There is nothing impolite about what I wrote, and since you already trashed this thread, I see no harm in responding to your unwarranted baloney.

More of your psychological projection onto Zeb. Funny stuff.

It was rude and unwarranted what you said to her and mainecoons. Typical.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to belabor the point, but:

(Mainecoons)

"If I quoted sources you all like they would all be of one persuasion and we both know that.  Rather I go to professional sources like the last one that are heavily documented and present you the opportunity to go directly to the source material and read it independently.  I do that often to make sure the reference document is quoting the sources accurately"

...but this was your first reference:

"UTownhall is owned by Salem Media Group, which owns numerous right-leaning Christian-based radio stations across the USA. According to Open Secrets, Salem Media Group donates 100% to Republicans and right-leaning PACS. Online advertising generates revenue for Townhall. nbiased sources such as: (etc.)"

_____________________________________________________________________

Let's be straightforward about this:  This board has both far right and far left members posting.  Their biases show clearly, and there is nothing wrong with people having differing opinions, so long as they maintain civility.  Unfortunately, too many of these posts have degenerated into slugfests.  How about us aiming to disagree, agreeably, instead?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regards the Posts a couple "up the thread"....

Couldn't agree more.  And yes, rude IMO.  Always trying to  upstage someone who doesn't agree. Hardly ever Posts new information usable by some or all but rather jumps on anything not believed, with vengeance... again IMO.

AND on another subject, while I seldom agree with much of anything that MC posts, nor how he often is IMO hypocritical.... my opinion only maybe.... and pushes his beliefs "beyond belief", he DOES have' a right here to Post whatever he pleases.  If I don't agree with it/him I can either disregard it, chalk it up to.... or I can rebut. But basically calling him an a$$hole for his beliefs says more about the writer than the receiver...again IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gringal said:

SNIP............

Let's be straightforward about this:  This board has both far right and far left members posting.  Their biases show clearly, and there is nothing wrong with people having differing opinions, so long as they maintain civility.  Unfortunately, too many of these posts have degenerated into slugfests.  How about us aiming to disagree, agreeably, instead?

BINGO!  And your last sentence surely could and maybe should be Pinned.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.  — George Washington

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. — John Milton

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. — Noam Chomsky

 

The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum. — Adlai E. Stevenson

A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything. — Napoleon Bonaparte

The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with. — Eleanor Holmes Norton

 

The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think. — Oliver Wendell Holmes

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. — Salman Rushdi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gringal said:

Not to belabor the point, but:

(Mainecoons)

"If I quoted sources you all like they would all be of one persuasion and we both know that.  Rather I go to professional sources like the last one that are heavily documented and present you the opportunity to go directly to the source material and read it independently.  I do that often to make sure the reference document is quoting the sources accurately"

...but this was your first reference:

"UTownhall is owned by Salem Media Group, which owns numerous right-leaning Christian-based radio stations across the USA. According to Open Secrets, Salem Media Group donates 100% to Republicans and right-leaning PACS. Online advertising generates revenue for Townhall. nbiased sources such as: (etc.)"

_____________________________________________________________________

Let's be straightforward about this:  This board has both far right and far left members posting.  Their biases show clearly, and there is nothing wrong with people having differing opinions, so long as they maintain civility.  Unfortunately, too many of these posts have degenerated into slugfests.  How about us aiming to disagree, agreeably, instead?

As I have said before "attack the subject, not the person".  It does not matter which side a person is on politically.  The topic had to do with masks, not about politics.  Why do we always have to check to see how the source leans politically in order to feel that it is acceptable?  I think it's insane to do that. 

I posted something a while back from a reputable Houston doctor and his medical opinion on the vaccines. This physician has been around for a really long time and had a radio show.   Immediately, someone looked up his background, and as soon as he saw that he was a conservative and his related involvements, he was discredited.  That was hogwash and had nothing do with his medical credentials or medical opinion, but this is what it's come to.  It reminds me of when Christians were hunted down for whatever they did, just because of their religious beliefs.  This is where society is going....total intolerance towards those who disagree.  Very frightening. 

And quite frankly, I don't know who is moderating this Boards, but it seems that no one really is.  We are supposed to have a Code of Conduct on this Board, yet it is not enforced.  Posters get away with insulting each other and being snippy.  It's high schools all over again.  No adult supervision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, AndyPanda said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Go sleep somewhere else.  No one wants to hear your snoring.  This little posting is like what an immature teenager would do.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gringal said:

Not to belabor the point, but:

(Mainecoons)

"If I quoted sources you all like they would all be of one persuasion and we both know that.  Rather I go to professional sources like the last one that are heavily documented and present you the opportunity to go directly to the source material and read it independently.  I do that often to make sure the reference document is quoting the sources accurately"

...but this was your first reference:

"UTownhall is owned by Salem Media Group, which owns numerous right-leaning Christian-based radio stations across the USA. According to Open Secrets, Salem Media Group donates 100% to Republicans and right-leaning PACS. Online advertising generates revenue for Townhall. nbiased sources such as: (etc.)"

_____________________________________________________________________

Let's be straightforward about this:  This board has both far right and far left members posting.  Their biases show clearly, and there is nothing wrong with people having differing opinions, so long as they maintain civility.  Unfortunately, too many of these posts have degenerated into slugfests.  How about us aiming to disagree, agreeably, instead?

I agree. It does not matter your political leaning.  Courtesy and respect of others is what matters.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zeb said:

As I have said before "attack the subject, not the person".  It does not matter which side a person is on politically.  The topic had to do with masks, not about politics.  Why do we always have to check to see how the source leans politically in order to feel that it is acceptable?  I think it's insane to do that. 

I posted something a while back from a reputable Houston doctor and his medical opinion on the vaccines. This physician has been around for a really long time and had a radio show.   Immediately, someone looked up his background, and as soon as he saw that he was a conservative and his related involvements, he was discredited.  That was hogwash and had nothing do with his medical credentials or medical opinion, but this is what it's come to. 

The criticism was not because he is a conservative, it was because he's nuts! 

The guy peddles all sort of nutty theories.  He SELLS his vitamins online; he LIED about their effectiveness. He was warned by the FDA to cease and desist (by the former US administration) making false claims that his vitamins could cure Covid.  

Not everything is political, sometimes people are just bat-shit crazy. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zeb said:

Go sleep somewhere else.  No one wants to hear your snoring.  This little posting is like what an immature teenager would do.

Simply a commentary on your behaviour and your numerous postings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are very good at trying to hide your own inability to stay the course by calling out others. Just not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...