Jw...why are shield not effective? How do you define effective?
I do not wear one fyi, jc
Wearing used mask might be worse than wearing no mask
- Thread starter Finance85
- Start date
I do not wear one fyi, jc
Well, according the research in the OP, actually worst case is they are a net negative.
But, if you agree that they do very little, which the case data suggests is true, then stop trying to convince people they make a big difference.
Or, we would see a big difference in areas that have mandated masks. And, we do not.
I don't define. I just observe the changing recommendations and report what I see.
Please note the different dates of the linked articles.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/will-a-face-shield-protect-you-from-the-coronavirus/
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...ields-arent-a-safe-alternative-to-cloth-masks
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200806-are-face-shields-effective-against-covid-19
There are very, very few encounters like this. Using rare exceptions does not bolster your foolish assertion.
CA is having a spike that exceeds their records. They are still not what Iowa, SD and ND were. Thank goodness for their mitigations or it would be even worse.
AGAIN:
WEARING A MASK PREVENTS THE USER FROM TRANSMITTING, MORESO THAN THE WEARER FROM SOMEONE ELSE NOT WEARING A MASK.
It does NOT appear this "study" is addressing ANY of that.
Last edited:
Wearing masks helps prevent the spread of virus. Therefore it makes sense for everyone to wear masks.
Yep
No matter how many times this is repeated, some rando Twitter account pulls up a "new study" that isn't related to that fact, at all, and the MAGAs go berserk pretending it's something earthshattering.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
On the whole, they make a big difference. Thus the message to everyone remains - wear a mask.
You're the one that posts the graphic showing the percentages if one or both users wear a mask.
I guess it's too much thinking outside the box for you to consider that droplets and particles can flow through cloth both ways.
Have you given any thought as to why wearing a mask protects others, moreso than the wearer? It's likely because the wearer's eyes are uncovered, and the eyes are also an entry point for the virus, but not much of an exit.
Apparently since you didn't post this, it should be dismissed. Did you ever consider the possibility that cases are still going up despite mask use because a lot of people don't wear them correctly, or launder them? Did you ever consider the possibility of that being the difference between Japan and other places where mask usage is new?
No; that's LITERALLY what you've been told as to WHY they work for limiting transmission.
He has no idea what he's even posting.
It's just throwing shit around and seeing what sticks.
Pretty much anytime he posts anything scientific, he doesn't understand it, and misrepresents results with some wacky political stance.
That is an assumption. Which the case counts are showing that masks and additional precautions cannot keep spread under control.
Because if you haven't noticed, despite since knowing and using these precautions for months, nowhere has been safe or been able to keep things consistently under 5%.
It's not - it's been studied and scientific consensus deems masks help prevent the spread of virus. They've never been touted as 100% foolproof and the allusion to that is intellectually lazy. They help. As does distancing. As does avoiding large gatherings. There are those of you who will pick nits with outliers and such, but the fact remains, masks work. Wear them.
Everyone is wearing them. They aren't providing the protection that you and others have insisted they would.
So, you keep dialing back expectations with every new spike.
The question is if all these precautions, including closing and severely restricting businesses and schools are worth it for a reduction of 1%, 5%...10%?
There is a discussion to be had around that, which unfortunately gets drowned out because of people like you.
So, you keep dialing back expectations with every new spike.
The question is if all these precautions, including closing and severely restricting businesses and schools are worth it for a reduction of 1%, 5%...10%?
There is a discussion to be had around that, which unfortunately gets drowned out because of people like you.
Wear a mask. A clean mask. It's really not that hard.
It just seems there's a lot of arguing just for the sake of arguing.
It just seems there's a lot of arguing just for the sake of arguing.
More people are now and that is helping. More mandates have pushed that along, it appears. However, it's incorrect to say everyone is wearing them. Too many still aren't.
There are levels of precautions. If everyone was wearing masks, distancing and avoiding gatherings there may be no need for severely restricting businesses or schools. People like you ignore this.
Damn. See? I got the joke and was going to defend you and then you had to do something stupid like this.
Hasn't the messaging from the beginning been to wash your mask frequently? What am I missing here?
It would appear that under a very specific set of circumstances that are highly unlikely to be found in public a very dirty mask might be less protective to the wearer (which was never the main point) than no mask at all.
And?
That's not what that research states.
And that is complete bullshit. That you even post something so f'n stupid and that can be disproven in under 30 seconds demonstrates that you're full of shit.
Actually, that took less than 30 seconds.
What took so long?That's not what that research states.
And that is complete bullshit. That you even post something so f'n stupid and that can be disproven in under 30 seconds demonstrates that you're full of shit.
Actually, that took less than 30 seconds.
LOL... I'm not buying the 'worse' part. Also, "used or worn out"... Is "used" once? It does make sense that a mask that loses its density or filtration ability would be less effective than a new one.
I know you think you're being clever but the folks in my picture never wear masks...it's what they're about...it's quite literally what they're protesting. Can you say the same for the people in yours?What took so long?
Here's what the research says:
Soooo...if you are in an environment where the only vector for spreading Covid would be particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers (meaning no droplets at all and no larger airborne particles), and you're using a very old mask whose filtration capability has been degraded by more than 60%....the mask might be worse than no mask at all for the wearer only.
I'm...shocked?
If you read any of the "expert" guidance, it always says "may" help prevent the spread. NOBODY has ever said it prevents the spread. Studies done in 2020 do not disprove studies over the past 100 years that basic masks do not prevent the spread. When contract tracing is done, if you were exposed to an infected person, you must quarantine unless you were wearing an N-95 mask. Therefore regular masks are not considered. Mask have wrongly become the "first defense" when clearly staying away from people is the priority. The masks most of us wear are worn by medical professionals first and foremost, to protect them from liquids, not particles, else they wear something different.
Kansas has.
Your Fox & Friends buddy literally pointed that out, and corrected his MAGA pals on camera citing their study.
You're wrong again. Masks make it harder for the virus to spread. That is the wide consensus of science. No one is suggesting they 100% stop the spread or are infallible. They do help and should be worn by everyone. Similar to seatbelts and airbags - they are effective in protecting people despite not doing so 100% of the time.
Get your head out of your ass and wear your mask and promote it to others.
You do realize the masks healthcare employees wear are different than the cloth masks 99% of the general public is wearing? Right?
Similar threads
