|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 23, 2022 3:26:06 GMT
Seems pretty obvious to me, but do point out what it is that you think I don't understand. What context is missing? Exactly which goal post was moved here? It’s there. Read it. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 23, 2022 3:27:04 GMT
Neither is across the board, no exceptions, mass mandated medical treatment. Especially given the new science and most recent information that has come out about who is most and least at risk. And the new science about the effectiveness of natural immunity. Home study, personal research/compilation of data, along with discussing with your own doctor IS going to be accurate for your personal decisions. Sorry but no. And here you are again, only cherry picking a part of my words. You’ll never stop being dishonest in your attempts at posting. Speaking of dishonest, you'll see here I quoted every. single. word. you. said. I left nothing out. If I address the one thing you said, that I disagree with and back it up, that is NOT cherry picking. You did not include my entire statement. You cherry picked. As you do frequently. You’re dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 23, 2022 3:27:37 GMT
Isn't this a clear example of that "selfish thinking" that y'all attribute to anti-mandate people? Asking for a friend.  As usual, you’re fucking clueless. Willfully and deliberately obtuse. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 23, 2022 4:32:43 GMT
You absolutely are lying when you say masks don’t work. They do. It’s a proven verifiable fact. Prove it then. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 7:39:19 GMT
I am a strong supporter of mask wearing and use a respirator type myself . I think it all helps to reduce transmission together with ventilation and distancing. Different style masks offer different amounts of protection , cloth ones are of concern. This is something I have found online which pulls together several scientific studies . It states that although results are inconsistent on the whole mask wearing has been found to offer protection. it suggests that universal mask wearing should be applied during the pandemic and cautions against the cloth variety. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407516/  
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 23, 2022 7:48:25 GMT
@ktc - Sorry, I can't read that as it is and it doesn't open right for me when I click on it.
What's the long and short of the article? Please and thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 10:04:35 GMT
The writing is small as a screenshot, I was squinting trying to read it myself.
Here it is as a quote , hope that helps. I tried the link again and it still working for me.
Abstract
During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, face masks are among the most common and practical control measures used globally in reducing the risk of infection and disease transmission. Although several studies have investigated the efficacy of various face masks and respirators in preventing infection, the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the actual efficacy of face masks in preventing respiratory infections. We searched nine electronic databases up to July 2020 to find potential articles. We accepted trials reporting the protective efficacy of face masks against respiratory infections, of which the primary endpoint was the presence of respiratory infections.
We used the ROB-2 Cochrane tool to grade the trial quality. We initially registered the protocol for this study in PROSPERO (CRD42020178516). Sixteen RCTs involving 17 048 individuals were included for NMA. Overall, evidence was weak, lacking statistical power due to the small number of participants, and there was substantial inconsistency in our findings.
In comparison to those without face masks, participants with fit-tested N95 respirators were likely to have lesser infection risk (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38-1.19,P-score 0.80), followed by those with non-fit-tested N95 and non-fit-tested FFP2 respirators that shared the similar risk, (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.12-4.36,P-score 0.63) and (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38-1.71,P-score 0.63), respectively. Next, participants who donned face masks with and without hand hygiene practices showed modest risk improvement alike (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.17,P-score 0.55) and (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.22,P-score 0.51). Otherwise, participants donning double-layered cloth masks were prone to infection (RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.42-16.27,P-score 0.01). Eleven out of 16 RCTs that underwent a pairwise meta-analysis revealed a substantially lower infection risk in those donning medical face masks (MFMs) than those without face masks (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.71-0.96).
Given the body of evidence through a systematic review and meta-analyses, our findings supported the protective benefits of MFMs in reducing respiratory transmissions, and the universal mask-wearing should be applied-especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. More clinical data is required to conclude the efficiency of cloth masks; in the short term, users should not use cloth face masks in the outbreak hot spots and places where social distancing is impossible.
edited to add some breaks for ease of reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia123 on Feb 23, 2022 11:24:15 GMT
I just want to echo those who feel that all lives matter and count. Disability or comorbidities do not make a person’s life less valuable. Or that person less loved and missed. Each person that is lost prematurely through Covid leaves a grieving family behind. “Underlying health conditions” is a phrase that I have often heard used on news reports when covering sad deaths . It feels to me as if it is used as poor excuse to cover up pandemic mismanagement and preventable deaths. I don't really understand this but I've heard it frequently throughout the pandemic. Genuine question, do people feel similarly when it is stated that x % of people dying from lung cancer smoked or x % of people dying of heart attacks were overweight or whatever? I dont see that as devaluing lives but instead allowing people to understand which risk factors they may or may not have for certain illnesses. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 11:25:39 GMT
Just to add a little extra - I have had to ask my husband to look at the above meta-analysis for help to explain the statistics because I find them difficult to understand myself. He said that RR stands for Relative Risk , so if it says RR 0.67 , it means that the relative risk compared to not wearing a mask is 67%. So if a person wears a mask it reduces the chance of getting infected to 67%, giving a 33% protection rate. He said that CI stands for Confidence Interval and the percentage figure in front of it states the Confidence Interval value. So it states that 95% of results lie within the range of 0.38 to 1.19. Which means that 95% of the results varied between 0.38 and 1.19. He said that P value is about statistical significance and commented that because they were citing 0.8 which is above the threshold of 0.05 it means they were of poor statistical significance. On the whole he said that the data given was very limited and that the results were not statistically significant. He said that the results were contrary but on average wearing masks did offer some protection, albeit limited. He pointed out that the group with N95 respirators was small in number which wasn’t enough for a statistically significant result. Had a larger trial been conducted it may have yielded a more statistically significant result . Sigh ! I hope this makes sense , I am finding rather complicated. Meanwhile here is a better article relating to mask use during SARS 1 during 2008 showing the effectiveness of mask use. It suggests that masks had a protective efficacy of greater than 80% against respiratory viruses in general when people were mask compliant. From the International Journal of Infectious diseases. www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712%2808%2901008-4/fulltext#relatedArticles   |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 11:39:29 GMT
Regarding the value of people’s lives I can only speak for myself .
Offhand , I feel that people have genetic tendencies towards certain weaknesses in their health which may be aggravated by lifestyle choices .
I have to say I don’t like it when I hear other people blaming the deceased for their own deaths.
None of us are perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia123 on Feb 23, 2022 11:52:30 GMT
Regarding the value of people’s lives I can only speak for myself . Offhand , I feel that people have genetic tendencies towards certain weaknesses in their health which may be aggravated by lifestyle choices . I have to say I don’t like it when I hear other people blaming the deceased for their own deaths. None of us are perfect. Of course no one is perfect, but stating that people who smoke are more likely to die from lung cancer or that people with certain pre exististing conditions are at a greater risk of dying from Covid is not blaming the deseaced for their own deaths and has nothing to do with the value of those peoples lives . We need to know who is most at risk of severe illness in order to appropriately allocate resources and make sure our prevention strategies target those people |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 12:04:33 GMT
I just want to echo those who feel that all lives matter and count. Disability or comorbidities do not make a person’s life less valuable. Or that person less loved and missed. Each person that is lost prematurely through Covid leaves a grieving family behind. “Underlying health conditions” is a phrase that I have often heard used on news reports when covering sad deaths . It feels to me as if it is used as poor excuse to cover up pandemic mismanagement and preventable deaths. I don't really understand this but I've heard it frequently throughout the pandemic. Genuine question, do people feel similarly when it is stated that x % of people dying from lung cancer smoked or x % of people dying of heart attacks were overweight or whatever? I dont see that as devaluing lives but instead allowing people to understand which risk factors they may or may not have for certain illnesses. I've always understood that the reasons to differentiate between perfectly healthy people dying and the people that die with existing medical problems it to highlight the fact that, without doubt, the latter group of people are far more vulnerable and are at a far greater risk because they have other medical problems. That in turn highlights the need that the rest of us that are known to be or perceived as healthy needs to take more precautions, not necessarily to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people that are at a much higher risk. As a society we do have a responsibility towards others especially in a pandemic, an epidemic or in fact at any time when the risk is much higher for some and not others. It doesn't take much for someone to consider the impact their actions have on others around them. That was mainly the reason that most mandates were brought in because the public couldn't be relied on enough to take, not only personal responsibility but to consider the risk of harm to others too. A classic case of this responsibility is smoking. Isn't that the reason that so many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public places because it impacts the health of others and not just your own. It needed a law to do it, the public were not responsible enough to do it without one. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 23, 2022 12:10:35 GMT
I just want to echo those who feel that all lives matter and count. Disability or comorbidities do not make a person’s life less valuable. Or that person less loved and missed. Each person that is lost prematurely through Covid leaves a grieving family behind. “Underlying health conditions” is a phrase that I have often heard used on news reports when covering sad deaths . It feels to me as if it is used as poor excuse to cover up pandemic mismanagement and preventable deaths. I don't really understand this but I've heard it frequently throughout the pandemic. Genuine question, do people feel similarly when it is stated that x % of people dying from lung cancer smoked or x % of people dying of heart attacks were overweight or whatever? I dont see that as devaluing lives but instead allowing people to understand which risk factors they may or may not have for certain illnesses. Actually I do think that. And I often have heard people say, “it is too bad that he/she didn't stop smoking so that they could be there for their families.” I would never say it to the family of the person who are suffering the loss, but I do think it. Weight is different for me, because there are a variety of reasons why people are overweight and not all are under the person’s control. The flip side is that I also hear people say that they did stop smoking or lost weight because they didn't want to die of cancer or heart disease. We also spend as a society quite a bit of money on smoking cessation programs - the federal government (our tax dollars) funds smoking cessation programs. We also, as a society, have outlawed smoking in all public indoor spaces, because others’ smoke can cause health problems for others. This has happened in my lifetime. It is a step further than mask mandates, but because the right wing didn't make it a political issue, we haven't had huge protests over smoking bans, closing down cities and threatening politicians. If the smoking ban issue were going on now, I’m willing to bet FOX news and OANN would make a big issue out of it and we would have people smoking in restaurants and in airplanes in protest. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 23, 2022 12:11:39 GMT
I don't really understand this but I've heard it frequently throughout the pandemic. Genuine question, do people feel similarly when it is stated that x % of people dying from lung cancer smoked or x % of people dying of heart attacks were overweight or whatever? I dont see that as devaluing lives but instead allowing people to understand which risk factors they may or may not have for certain illnesses. I've always understood that the reasons to differentiate between perfectly healthy people dying and the people that die with existing medical problems it to highlight the fact that, without doubt, the latter group of people are far more vulnerable and are at a far greater risk because they have other medical problems. That in turn highlights the need that the rest of us that are known to be or perceived as healthy needs to take more precautions, not necessarily to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people that are at a much higher risk. As a society we do have a responsibility towards others especially in a pandemic, an epidemic or in fact at any time when the risk is much higher for some and not others. It doesn't take much for someone to consider the impact their actions have on others around them. That was mainly the reason that most mandates were brought in because the public couldn't be relied on enough to take, not only personal responsibility but to consider the risk of harm to others too. A classic case of this responsibility is smoking. Isn't that the reason that so many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public places because it impacts the health of others and not just your own. It needed a law to do it, the public were not responsible enough to do it without one. Yes. We were typing at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by claudia123 on Feb 23, 2022 12:12:49 GMT
I don't really understand this but I've heard it frequently throughout the pandemic. Genuine question, do people feel similarly when it is stated that x % of people dying from lung cancer smoked or x % of people dying of heart attacks were overweight or whatever? I dont see that as devaluing lives but instead allowing people to understand which risk factors they may or may not have for certain illnesses. I've always understood that the reasons to differentiate between perfectly healthy people dying and the people that die with existing medical problems it to highlight the fact that, without doubt, the latter group of people are far more vulnerable and are at a far greater risk because they have other medical problems. That in turn highlights the need that the rest of us that are known to be or perceived as healthy needs to take more precautions, not necessarily to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people that are at a much higher risk. As a society we do have a responsibility towards others especially in a pandemic, an epidemic or in fact at any time when the risk is much higher for some and not others. It doesn't take much for someone to consider the impact their actions have on others around them. That was mainly the reason that most mandates were brought in because the public couldn't be relied on enough to take, not only personal responsibility but to consider the risk of harm to others too. A classic case of this responsibility is smoking. Isn't that the reason that so many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public places because it impacts the health of others and not just your own. It needed a law to do it, the public were not responsible enough to do it without one. From my point of view the main reason to highlight the difference in risk between totally healthy people and people with pre existing conditions which make them at higher risk is surely to prioritise things such as access to vaccines and post exposure treatments. It is not scientific or ethical for young, healthy people to be in the same place in the queue for these things as old or otherwise at risk individuals but if we make it taboo to state these things then more people will die unnecessarily. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 12:25:31 GMT
The image below explains mask wearing far easier than % and numbers. Mask wearing isn't 100% effective but both wearing masks lowers the risk quite considerably. But it works better as part of an overall lowering of risk wich includes washing your hands more frequently/ use of sanitizer and keep your distance. As far as cloth masks are concerned my opinion is that it is better than nothing. It depends greatly of the material used. A close weave fabric double layered will give far more protections than say a loose weaved fabric. This is where a lot of people at the beginning of this pandemic, they thought any spare piece of material would do provided it covered you mouth and nose - not true! A medically approved mask will obviously give better protection than a cloth one.  . ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 23, 2022 12:31:15 GMT
I don't really understand this but I've heard it frequently throughout the pandemic. Genuine question, do people feel similarly when it is stated that x % of people dying from lung cancer smoked or x % of people dying of heart attacks were overweight or whatever? I dont see that as devaluing lives but instead allowing people to understand which risk factors they may or may not have for certain illnesses. I've always understood that the reasons to differentiate between perfectly healthy people dying and the people that die with existing medical problems it to highlight the fact that, without doubt, the latter group of people are far more vulnerable and are at a far greater risk because they have other medical problems. That in turn highlights the need that the rest of us that are known to be or perceived as healthy needs to take more precautions, not necessarily to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people that are at a much higher risk. As a society we do have a responsibility towards others especially in a pandemic, an epidemic or in fact at any time when the risk is much higher for some and not others. It doesn't take much for someone to consider the impact their actions have on others around them. That was mainly the reason that most mandates were brought in because the public couldn't be relied on enough to take, not only personal responsibility but to consider the risk of harm to others too. A classic case of this responsibility is smoking. Isn't that the reason that so many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public places because it impacts the health of others and not just your own. It needed a law to do it, the public were not responsible enough to do it without one. Yes. I remember when they designated “smoking” and “nonsmoking” areas in restaurants. It was a first effort, but the idea seems so quaint now. And people were furious. Now, of course, smoking is generally banned indoors, and everyone is used to it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 12:48:31 GMT
I've always understood that the reasons to differentiate between perfectly healthy people dying and the people that die with existing medical problems it to highlight the fact that, without doubt, the latter group of people are far more vulnerable and are at a far greater risk because they have other medical problems. That in turn highlights the need that the rest of us that are known to be or perceived as healthy needs to take more precautions, not necessarily to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people that are at a much higher risk. As a society we do have a responsibility towards others especially in a pandemic, an epidemic or in fact at any time when the risk is much higher for some and not others. It doesn't take much for someone to consider the impact their actions have on others around them. That was mainly the reason that most mandates were brought in because the public couldn't be relied on enough to take, not only personal responsibility but to consider the risk of harm to others too. A classic case of this responsibility is smoking. Isn't that the reason that so many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public places because it impacts the health of others and not just your own. It needed a law to do it, the public were not responsible enough to do it without one. From my point of view the main reason to highlight the difference in risk between totally healthy people and people with pre existing conditions which make them at higher risk is surely to prioritise things such as access to vaccines and post exposure treatments. It is not scientific or ethical for young, healthy people to be in the same place in the queue for these things as old or otherwise at risk individuals but if we make it taboo to state these things then more people will die unnecessarily.Don't notice anyone suggesting that and I surely as heck didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 23, 2022 12:56:37 GMT
I've always understood that the reasons to differentiate between perfectly healthy people dying and the people that die with existing medical problems it to highlight the fact that, without doubt, the latter group of people are far more vulnerable and are at a far greater risk because they have other medical problems. That in turn highlights the need that the rest of us that are known to be or perceived as healthy needs to take more precautions, not necessarily to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people that are at a much higher risk. As a society we do have a responsibility towards others especially in a pandemic, an epidemic or in fact at any time when the risk is much higher for some and not others. It doesn't take much for someone to consider the impact their actions have on others around them. That was mainly the reason that most mandates were brought in because the public couldn't be relied on enough to take, not only personal responsibility but to consider the risk of harm to others too. A classic case of this responsibility is smoking. Isn't that the reason that so many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public places because it impacts the health of others and not just your own. It needed a law to do it, the public were not responsible enough to do it without one. From my point of view the main reason to highlight the difference in risk between totally healthy people and people with pre existing conditions which make them at higher risk is surely to prioritise things such as access to vaccines and post exposure treatments. It is not scientific or ethical for young, healthy people to be in the same place in the queue for these things as old or otherwise at risk individuals but if we make it taboo to state these things then more people will die unnecessarily.I’m not sure what country you are in, but COVID vaccine availability in the USA is queued exactly as you state. That is very different than saying we, as a society, don't need mask or vaccine mandates because the old and those with comorbidities are more likely to die of COVID. |
|
|
|
Post by claudia123 on Feb 23, 2022 13:06:08 GMT
From my point of view the main reason to highlight the difference in risk between totally healthy people and people with pre existing conditions which make them at higher risk is surely to prioritise things such as access to vaccines and post exposure treatments. It is not scientific or ethical for young, healthy people to be in the same place in the queue for these things as old or otherwise at risk individuals but if we make it taboo to state these things then more people will die unnecessarily.Don't notice anyone suggesting that and I surely as heck didn't. Our global vaccine roll put has been exactly that. Young healthy people in rich, predominately white countries have had 3 vaccines before many old and vunerable in the developing world have had one and vaccine mandates in aforementioned rich conutries definitley have an impact on this. |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 23, 2022 13:08:12 GMT
AGAIN, I quoted the DIRECTOR of the CDC. You don’t know whether the other 240,000 people had any comorbidities. Neither do I. Nobody does. The CDC obviously didn’t say. maybe the other 240k did too, maybe they didn’t. We do know that millions and millions of people had covid and survived it. I have no control over a disaster occurring or whether people have autoimmune diseases or high blood pressure. My point is that covid will be around now for years and years to come The vax does not protect anyone from getting covid. I think that fact is obvious. It lessens your chance of dying from it. We need to learn to live with it because it’s not going away. The subsequent variants are proving to be less potent and the best we can hope for is that they continue to be. That too is a proven, verifiable fact. Just because you refuse to believe it does not make it true. Only one vaxed, boosted and masked person has to get covid to make your statement untrue. It minimizes the symptoms but it does not prevent anyone from getting it. Ask the masked, vaxed and boosted people on this board that got covid despite being vaxed if that is true... |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 13:16:37 GMT
With regard to the comment of people being blamed for their own deaths unfortunately I have witnessed this happening on certain threads on this board regarding people who chose not to get vaccinated and subsequently died. It was not just one person who has said such things it was several.
The atmosphere on this board has been so toxic at times and people have expressed both blame and glee when these people died.
This goes far beyond a lack of compassion has been disturbing in it’s cruelty for want of a better word.
Claudia I think you make a good point in identifying those most at risk ,predisposed to certain illnesses in helping to provide the best treatment.
I think that Dottyscrapper has also made a good point about the risks of passive smoking and society not protecting each other from infectious illnesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 23, 2022 13:18:25 GMT
You absolutely are lying when you say masks don’t work. They do. It’s a proven verifiable fact. Prove it then. Do you want your dentist or surgeon leaning over you up to hours without a mask? |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 23, 2022 14:04:39 GMT
Do you want your dentist or surgeon leaning over you up to hours without a mask? Masks do not prevent you from getting or giving covid. The vast numbers of people who have gotten covid despite wearing a mask can tell you that. How many people wear them wrong or wear the wrong type? Even the box of masks in our office says that they are not for use with infants or children and that they are not intended for use longer than 4 hours. These are the disposable 3 ply blue masks that nearly everyone wears. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 14:16:58 GMT
Now, of course, smoking is generally banned indoors, and everyone is used to it. You mean a government MANDATE about what we can put in our bodies in certain places?!?!?!? If this thread has taught us anything it's that you can't reason with the willfully ignorant. You can post research, graphics, articles, videos, etc. But they will not be moved. It's Nye/Ham all over again. The brainwashed will deny the undeniable, they will ignore reason, logic and evidence in order to cling to their BELIEFS.
|
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 23, 2022 14:27:21 GMT
Now, of course, smoking is generally banned indoors, and everyone is used to it. You mean a government MANDATE about what we can put in our bodies in certain places?!?!?!? If this thread has taught us anything it's that you can't reason with the willfully ignorant. You can post research, graphics, articles, videos, etc. But they will not be moved.It's Nye/Ham all over again. The brainwashed will deny the undeniable, they will ignore reason, logic and evidence in order to cling to their BELIEFS.
That is the first thing I agree with you about. And everyone that disagrees with you is not woefully ignorant. They just have a different argument and a different story. Maybe people should read these to get a different perspective. www.instagram.com/storiesoverlabels/ |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 23, 2022 15:15:14 GMT
Do you want your dentist or surgeon leaning over you up to hours without a mask? Masks do not prevent you from getting or giving covid. The vast numbers of people who have gotten covid despite wearing a mask can tell you that. How many people wear them wrong or wear the wrong type? Even the box of masks in our office says that they are not for use with infants or children and that they are not intended for use longer than 4 hours. These are the disposable 3 ply blue masks that nearly everyone wears. You just listed why masks don't work for everyone all the time. In general people who DO wear their masks properly, masks do work. |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 23, 2022 15:40:05 GMT
Masks do not prevent you from getting or giving covid. The vast numbers of people who have gotten covid despite wearing a mask can tell you that. How many people wear them wrong or wear the wrong type? Even the box of masks in our office says that they are not for use with infants or children and that they are not intended for use longer than 4 hours. These are the disposable 3 ply blue masks that nearly everyone wears. You just listed why masks don't work for everyone all the time. In general people who DO wear their masks properly, masks do work. And I also said that masks don't prevent you from getting or giving covid. They just don't, whether you wear them properly or not. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 15:52:30 GMT
And I also said that masks don't prevent you from getting or giving covid. They just don't, whether you wear them properly or not. They are not supposed to PREVENT you from getting it in all cases, all exposure risks, in all situations. They are supposed to LESSEN THE CHANCE YOU GET IT. And they do. For the millionth time. How do you function in the world with such breathtaking lack of comprehension? |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 23, 2022 16:04:04 GMT
And I also said that masks don't prevent you from getting or giving covid. They just don't, whether you wear them properly or not. They are not supposed to PREVENT you from getting it in all cases, all exposure risks, in all situations. They are supposed to LESSEN THE CHANCE YOU GET IT. And they do. For the millionth time. How do you function in the world with such breathtaking lack of comprehension? Then by all means, wear a mask. For as long as you want to wear one. There is no mask mandate where I live. So I don't wear one. There will soon be no mask mandate where you live too because they are lifting those mandates all the time. If you want to wear a mask where it's not mandated, then go ahead and wear one. Nobody cares if you wear one. They only care if someone does not wear one. Mandated or not. |
|
