Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work
- Thread starter Kenneth Griffin
- Start date
The meta-analysis I just posted for you demonstrates benefits for just about any mask type.
Level of benefit goes up significantly with mask quality.
He's too stupid to understand what a "log scale" is.
And that even the smallest tic on the bottom is 2x. Same with the newer data I'd just posted. Plain cloth masks can eliminate 2x-5x or 10x of the particles. Better masks eliminate/block 100x-10,000x.
I learned 1 thing in the military and college, you can't bull shit a bull shitter.
You're free to live your life as a sucker. The government would NEVER lie to you.
"The government" isn't publishing the papers and data on masks.
Individual researchers at universities are. If their data and conclusions confuse you, they include contact information on the publications to send them questions about their work. If you ask nicely, they might explain it to you.
Grants
Or university salaries.
You know, the universities that taught them how log-scale graphs work.
Isn’t it comical how Mr. Science Dude is willing to abandon actual science as long as it fits whatever BS narrative he’s pushing? 🤣 🤣 🤣
(This) aligns with the recent call from philosophers of science to shift from a “measurement framework” (which draws solely or mainly on RCTs) to an “argument framework” (which systematically synthesizes evidence from multiple designs including mechanistic and real-world evidence)
If the masks were that effective, they wouldn't have had to push the pokes so hard... I mean why be an experiment when you could just mask up?
So the one guy wearing a cotton soft mask in a store of 100+ people. What's his level of benefit? Like, is it worth me not being able to understand a single thing he's mumbling beneficial, or like, "dude, I have a .03% chance of catching something to your .01% chance"?
And if you do catch it, depending on your age (mostly) you have about a 97% chance of being just fine.
More like a 15-20% chance of ending up with long-covid sequelae.
And that is a crap shoot, I'm certain. My COVID-19 bout in June 2022 was a breeze compared to my Flu Type B earlier this year. Took me 11 days to get going again compared to barely 5 for COVID. I haven't had a COVID shot since 2020, but I get the flu shot every year. Go figure.
The masks were no different than having a Ukraine flag in your bio. Conformity is the new highest level virtue in 2024
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,841
- 192,994
- 113
He is not wearing a mask.I guess for the same reason you didn't read my response.
My emphasis was on application. Does this do anyone any good? Yes? No?
The biggest wimps on Earth cried about wearing a mask.
Is that dead? No? Still spreading panic porn like it's 2020 and you're a good little foot soldier for big pharma
I read it. That’s why I quoted from it. It seems the ‘science’ crowd is more interested in feelings than conducting legitimate trials.
They (and you) have lost the room.
Or Private entities that fund them (I had 2 such grants in grad school).
This particular group is lots of Canadian researchers. So probably Canadian govt funding.
This is Joe then: “And the scientifically valid information we have from 5 random controlled studies - the Gold Standard for medical devices, treatments and drugs…”
And this is Joe now: ‘philosophers of science (whatever tf that is) need to shift from a measurement framework which draws solely or mainly on RCTs.’
Clown show.
FUNFACT: There's a wider knowledge base than RCTs. And there are types of studies/interventions where they are clearly required and others where they are not.
Yeah. Like when the Gold Standard of scientific studies won’t back up the claims you want to make. 🤡
Latest posts
-
-
-
Four Official Visitors Most Likely to Commit + Confidence Meters- Latest: Eliot Clough