Then, there's actually people the still to this day uphold all the nonsense. It's incredible.
No, we're not going to forget
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
No
They are crackpots. As is their leader, Kennedy.
They push vaccine disinformation.
If they were serious, they would collect actual data, and publish it in leading journals.
They do not, and will not, do that.
The leading journals don't like to publish papers that badmouth vaccines. You know as well as I do they don't want to be responsible for vaccine hesitancy, regardless of whether it's warranted.
But the WHO experts said vaccine "misinformation" is actually not misinformation.
Since when?
They publish what the data shows them. They published that "ivermectin" and "HCQ" don't work against Covid. Why did they "badmouth" those treatments?
You're an idiot! Get covid but not flu from mitigations.....talk about 5th grade concepts!
Did u forget that Covid is many times MORE infectious than flu?
And that our mitigations, in part, were responsible for flu being significantly less prevalent, during Covid.
Of course you forgot. So ironic in a thread claiming "we won't forget"....
This is just f**king total nonsense yet again from you. Mitigations did nothing, you were fooled because you're an idiot.
LMAO! Only YOU would interpret that graph as showing the opposite. You're an idiot.Weird
Because you posted a graphic which shows the exact OPPOSITE
WTAF are you babbling about? Our mitigations minimized flu spread.
And you apparently "forgot" that.
Meanwhile....Covid vaccines reduced Long Covid incidence by 73% compared to folks who skipped them....
It did not you idiot. Somehow it mitigated flu but not covid huh? Bonehead.
Remember when people actually thought just wearing a plastic face shield would protect them from Covid? lol. There were actual doctors pushing this narrative hard.
It made sense at the time.
You understand that, right?
You undermine your arguments when you claim otherwise on this and vaccines and masks and so on.
lol. No, it never made sense. It was obviously an airborne respiratory virus. And people were wearing plastic shields for splash protection. It did help identify the truly crazy covid people though.
That's simply wrong. Early on, the best evidence was that the virus was carried on heavier droplets. So, yes, it was airborne, but it was also appropriate to be concerned about spatter, for lack of a better word, and also contracting the disease from contact with surfaces where the virus landed.
Hence masks (because airborne), distancing and shields (because spatter), and spraying things down and washing hands (because the virus could live on surfaces for hours).
That's what we "knew" early on. And while 2 of those 3 vectors aren't considered high risk today - mainly because the heavier droplet view hasn't held up - ALL 3 are still real things.
If you are claiming otherwise you either slept through the first year of the pandemic and haven't bothered to educate yourself since, or you are an outright liar.
You‘re trying to rewrite history, or you just don’t remember. Dr. Eli and others were pushing face shields instead of (cloth) masks. And, it goes to show they had no idea what was happening for awhile, and there was no consensus. The ‘professionals’ were largely just making it up as they went. They were desperate to do something, anything, to help, and made a lot of decisions that turned out to be mistakes. It’s ok to admit that.
We should admit it, critique our response, and be better next time.
YOUR conclusion of the data is that of a complete imbecile.
More evidence face masks <<< garbage.
We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 - 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.
Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study | Epidemiology & Infection | Cambridge Core
Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study - Volume 151
The participants in the study were not randomly assigned to wear or not wear face masks, and141 they were not provided with or encouraged to use face masks. During the study period,142 official guidelines for face mask use changed, with mandatory use in certain situations. This143 may have affected the participants' use of face masks, with some choosing to wear them based144 on their own assessment of risk and effectiveness.More evidence face masks <<< garbage.
We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 - 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.
Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study | Epidemiology & Infection | Cambridge Core
Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study - Volume 151www.cambridge.org
Additionally, there may be other factors that could confound the relationship between face146 mask use and study outcomes, such as participants in high-risk professions or with risk factors147 for severe COVID-19. Both groups may be more or less prone to wear face masks, while also148 observing different social distancing practices than the average population. We also cannot149 rule reverse causality, in which those testing positive for COVID-19 were more prone to wear150 masks afterwards in order to protect others. Finally, there could be an association between the151 inclination to test and the propensity to wear a face mask.
So, not really a randomized study.
No routine/equal testing per each group
Probably garbage.
How do you know that?
Is that derived by testing people for antibodies at various points in time relative to their vaccine and long covid diagnosis?
I'm guessing your number is statistical and not clinical.
I'm guessing you are way out of your league in understanding any of it.
Publications from Sweden. And Swedish researchers.
Did you read it?More evidence face masks <<< garbage.
We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 - 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.
Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study | Epidemiology & Infection | Cambridge Core
Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study - Volume 151
Do you really think this means that masks cause COVID infections?
According to the researchers themselves, this is the only study out of many to impute an increased risk from mask wearing. One other saw no benefit. All the rest showed risk reduction from wearing masks.
This study is an outlier. Not something to base policy on.
