The coronavirus scam

[marke]

The

Gish Gallop. You paste a HUGE list of stuff and expect me to wade through it. This is a common strategy used in these debates.

Now then: The very first claim in that huge list is from Arnold Reitze - not a climate expert: he has degrees in law and public health. These do not qualify him to offer an appropriately informed opinion on the science of global warming and cooling. Note his specialty:

Professor Reitze is the author of seven books and more than 100 research studies and articles on environmental law.

Now, if you can show me a qualified expert who said the earth was cooling, we can discuss that.

And maybe there will be such a person. So what?

It is exceedingly odd that opponents of mainstream science (e.g. anti-vaxxers, creationists) point to "mistakes" in the history of science as if such errors were evidence that the scientific approach is not reliable. The irony, of course, is that the willingness to recognize and correct past errors is a hallmark of the strength, not the weakness, of the scientific approach to making sense of the world. Contrast this to the rigid dogmatism of religious fundamentalism.

The site I quoted listed dozens of other sources, some of which have since been taken down because leftists do not like admitting they were wrong in the past or that scientific theories like global warming are what can be rightly called "fluid scientific speculations." Don't try to deny that the public was informed by multiple sources 50 years ago that scientists were convinced the earth was cooling at an alarming rate. That is what was promoted in science and in the news whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why are you not answering my question? You claimed this:

researchers know masks worn by most people do not inhibit transmission of covid particles, but practicing cleanliness and avoiding contact with others, coupled with the wearing of masks, should reduce the likelihood of catching the disease from others.

My simple question for you is, again:

how could it possibly be the case that masks do not inhibit transmission if they do inhibit transmission when combined with other measures? I do not see how such a state of affairs is even possible.

Simple, it's not the masks that are doing the inhibiting.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, I can cite materials I still have on file, except for those scientific articles which have since been deleted after the claims were debunked.

Well please do.

 

[expos4ever]

No science has declared that masks alone stop the passage of extremely small covid particles. All we are being told by most sources is that masks work as long as they are used in conjunction with other measures which actually do have some beneficial effect.

Let's review. You stated this:

funny how science never said masks work to stop the spread of a virus until now....

I responded with this:

You claim that science never said masks work to stop the spread of a virus. I do not believe this - please make your case

I still do not believe you when you say that "science never said masks work to stop the spread of a virus, until now." But it is not fair to ask you to prove a negative. So I will try to find some evidence that, before this pandemic, scientists did indeed assert that masks will stop viruses.

In any event, you are obliged to defend this positive assertion that you make in the post to which I am now responding:

All we are being told by most sources is that masks work as long as they are used in conjunction with other measures which actually do have some beneficial effect

I do not believe this: please point us to a reputable source that asserts that masks only work when used in conjunction with other measures.

 

[expos4ever]

can you provide actual evidence that is not just smoke and mirrors that a cloth rag over your face is more than 3% effective ?

a cloth mask is 3% effective , which is statistically insignificant
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

What is your actual source, please?

Note the following from the British Medical Journal:

Meanwhile, a preprint tested the effectiveness of different face masks and compared this with the perceptions of protection among 710 US residents.11 A TSI 8038+machine was used to test N95, surgical, and two fabric face masks on an individual 25 times each. The researchers reported that fabric face masks “blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles.”

 

[expos4ever]

Masks do not restrict the flow of covid particles no matter what other safety precautions are used. The moronic storyline that masks work if used with other safety precautions means that masks don't work without using other safety precautions. Since masks do not restrict the flow of covid particles the whole mask mandate narrative is silly. Why not just say other precautions work but masks don't, which is what is really the case?

Do you not understand that you cannot just claim that "Masks do not restrict the flow of covid particles no matter what other safety precautions are used". You need to cite a reliable source.

And when you write this:

The moronic storyline that masks work if used with other safety precautions means that masks don't work without using other safety precautions

...you would be right, if any reputable source ever said such a thing. I doubt you will be able to support your claim that any reputable source ever said that masks need to be paired with other measures in order to work.

 

[expos4ever]

Simple, it's not the masks that are doing the inhibiting.

This is not the point. The point is that I am certain the overall landscape of the evidence shows that masks are indeed effective. And I have cited some evidence to this effect.

 

[expos4ever]

Don't try to deny that the public was informed by multiple sources 50 years ago that scientists were convinced the earth was cooling at an alarming rate. That is what was promoted in science and in the news whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

You need to make your case, not just make claims. Can you name an appropriately qualified expert who directly made claims about cooling. Journalists don't count - they can distort what the scientists say.

 

[marke]

Let's review. You stated this:

funny how science never said masks work to stop the spread of a virus until now....

I responded with this:

You claim that science never said masks work to stop the spread of a virus. I do not believe this - please make your case

I still do not believe you when you say that "science never said masks work to stop the spread of a virus, until now." But it is not fair to ask you to prove a negative. So I will try to find some evidence that, before this pandemic, scientists did indeed assert that masks will stop viruses.

In any event, you are obliged to defend this positive assertion that you make in the post to which I am now responding:

All we are being told by most sources is that masks work as long as they are used in conjunction with other measures which actually do have some beneficial effect

I do not believe this: please point us to a reputable source that asserts that masks only work when used in conjunction with other measures.

Not all viruses are the same. Covid particles are extremely small and cloth masks do little to stop their transmission. Other viruses may be different.

 

[marke]

What is your actual source, please?

Note the following from the British Medical Journal:

Meanwhile, a preprint tested the effectiveness of different face masks and compared this with the perceptions of protection among 710 US residents.11 A TSI 8038+machine was used to test N95, surgical, and two fabric face masks on an individual 25 times each. The researchers reported that fabric face masks “blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles.”

What we have here is a clear example of contradicting scientific claims, which is very common in new science fields with short time periods of data collection.

 

[marke]

Do you not understand that you cannot just claim that "Masks do not restrict the flow of covid particles no matter what other safety precautions are used". You need to cite a reliable source.

And when you write this:

The moronic storyline that masks work if used with other safety precautions means that masks don't work without using other safety precautions

...you would be right, if any reputable source ever said such a thing. I doubt you will be able to support your claim that any reputable source ever said that masks need to be paired with other measures in order to work.

Don't be silly. Others on this thread have posted this evidence and you have ignored it. I also learned some of what I know from those posts. I am not going to repost evidence you have already seen and rejected.

 

[marke]

This is not the point. The point is that I am certain the overall landscape of the evidence shows that masks are indeed effective. And I have cited some evidence to this effect.

A million voices rising in unison claiming silliness to be science will never turn an error into the truth.

 

[marke]

You need to make your case, not just make claims. Can you name an appropriately qualified expert who directly made claims about cooling. Journalists don't count - they can distort what the scientists say.

Don't quote quacks like Fauci. He changes his story more than a mother changes a diaper on a newborn during the same time period.

 

[Jefferson]

Don't quote quacks like Fauci. He changes his story more than a mother changes a diaper on a newborn during the same time period.

The contents of what gets changed are also the same.

 

[marke]

R

The contents of what gets changed are also the same.

Dr. Rand Paul, US Senator, grilled Fauci on his history of funding the Wuhan lab efforts to create a deadly variant of the bat virus. Fauci bristled, 'That money did not go to the development of the coronavirus, it was spent on research and development of vaccines to combat the deadly viruses the labs were attempting to create.'

 

[expos4ever]

Not all viruses are the same. Covid particles are extremely small and cloth masks do little to stop their transmission. Other viruses may be different.

Again, where is your evidence? I have evidence to the contrary:

The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies.

Note: they never directly claim that cloth masks work, but it is an unavoidable inference: they surely would not recommend cloth mask wearing if they did not believe it is efficacious.

And perhaps more importantly this:

Cloth does not stop isolated virions. However, most virus transmission occurs via larger particles in secretions, whether aerosol (<5 µm) or droplets (>5 µm), which are generated directly by speaking, eating, coughing, and sneezing; aerosols are also created when water evaporates from smaller droplets, which become aerosol-sized droplet nuclei. The point is not that some particles can penetrate but that some particles are stopped, particularly in the outward direction. Every virus-laden particle retained in a mask is not available to hang in the air as an aerosol or fall to a surface to be later picked up by touch.

It would be incorrect to argue that since cloth does not stop "isolated virions", that cloth does not inhibit transmission. As stated here, there is reason to believe even cloth masks reduce transmission.

 

[ok doser]

R

Dr. Rand Paul, US Senator, grilled Fauci on his history of funding the Wuhan lab efforts to create a deadly variant of the bat virus. Fauci bristled, 'That money did not go to the development of the coronavirus, it was spent on research and development of vaccines to combat the deadly viruses the labs were attempting to create.'

Oops

 

[marke]

Again, where is your evidence? I have evidence to the contrary:

The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies.

Note: they never directly claim that cloth masks work, but it is an unavoidable inference: they surely would not recommend cloth mask wearing if they did not believe it is efficacious.

And perhaps more importantly this:

Cloth does not stop isolated virions. However, most virus transmission occurs via larger particles in secretions, whether aerosol (<5 µm) or droplets (>5 µm), which are generated directly by speaking, eating, coughing, and sneezing; aerosols are also created when water evaporates from smaller droplets, which become aerosol-sized droplet nuclei. The point is not that some particles can penetrate but that some particles are stopped, particularly in the outward direction. Every virus-laden particle retained in a mask is not available to hang in the air as an aerosol or fall to a surface to be later picked up by touch.

It would be incorrect to argue that since cloth does not stop "isolated virions", that cloth does not inhibit transmission. As stated here, there is reason to believe even cloth masks reduce transmission.

Posting opinions proffered by those on the government payroll or who have a strong motivation to support the flawed government narrative is not scientific proof of anything.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Again, where is your evidence? I have evidence to the contrary:

The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies.

Note: they never directly claim that cloth masks work, but it is an unavoidable inference: they surely would not recommend cloth mask wearing if they did not believe it is efficacious.

And perhaps more importantly this:

Cloth does not stop isolated virions. However, most virus transmission occurs via larger particles in secretions, whether aerosol (<5 µm) or droplets (>5 µm), which are generated directly by speaking, eating, coughing, and sneezing; aerosols are also created when water evaporates from smaller droplets, which become aerosol-sized droplet nuclei. The point is not that some particles can penetrate but that some particles are stopped, particularly in the outward direction. Every virus-laden particle retained in a mask is not available to hang in the air as an aerosol or fall to a surface to be later picked up by touch.

It would be incorrect to argue that since cloth does not stop "isolated virions", that cloth does not inhibit transmission. As stated here, there is reason to believe even cloth masks reduce transmission.

I think the video speaks for itself...

 

[marke]

I think the video speaks for itself...

The silliness of masking promoted by Fauci and the whole leftist anarchist socialists group-think mob goes up in smoke.