Coronavirus - Doomsday

[Strike 3,963]

1 minute ago, TK0001 said:

Oh cool. So you're just following Tim around like a little puppy dog and accusing him of posting stupid sh!t without ever really caring to put any effort at having an actual point.

 

I made my point. 

So, is this gonna be your M.O. going forward?  Just starting arguments with people all day long?  You focked up one thread yesterday to the point of making it unreadable.  Is that gonna be your M.O.?  Or are you going to try to constructively contribute to this bored?

[TK0001 97]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

I made my point. 

So, is this gonna be your M.O. going forward?  Just starting arguments with people all day long?  You focked up one thread yesterday to the point of making it unreadable.  Is that gonna be your M.O.?  Or are you going to try to constructively contribute to this bored?

I just noticed you didn't appear until Tim made a contribution, then you jumped in with LOLOLOLYURSTOSTOOPID, so I was wondering if you had an actual discrepancy with what he said. You know, something of actual substance. You told me you don't really want to explain yourself, so I am left to believe you only exist in these threads to poop on his opinions.

For what it's worth, he's right. Masks do have an affect, but not nearly enough to make an impact upon the movement of the virus. It's really not that controversial of a stance, if you care to actually understand the point.

[Strike 3,963]

4 minutes ago, TK0001 said:

I just noticed you didn't appear until Tim made a contribution, then you jumped in with LOLOLOLYURSTOSTOOPID, so I was wondering if you had an actual discrepancy with what he said. You know, something of actual substance. You told me you don't really want to explain yourself, so I am left to believe you only exist in these threads to poop on his opinions.

For what it's worth, he's right. Masks do have an affect, but not nearly enough to make an impact upon the movement of the virus. It's really not that controversial of a stance, if you care to actually understand the point.

Ahhh.  So you believe the same stupid sh*t as him.  Got anything to support that stance?  

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

2 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

In my area the surrounding school districts have kids going in 4 days a week.

One of the high schools in my district just went back to remote learning. Along with a two others not in my district.

My nephew has 100% remote learning last year.  When the new year started, they went back to school for 2 weeks.  ONE teacher got Covid from her husband, who got it at work, and the schools went back to 100% remote learning until February.  Now, they have split sessions.  Kids are in schools 4 days a week, but no individual kid is there more than 2.  So, some kids go Monday and Tuesday, while the rest are remote learning.  No kids at all on Wednesday, but then the other kids go to school on Thursday and Friday while those in school on Monday and Tuesday are home.  After Spring Break, the entire school district will be 100% remote learning for 4 weeks, then it's back to 3 days remote / 2 days in-school for the remainder of the year.

[Cdub100 3,380]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

My nephew has 100% remote learning last year.  When the new year started, they went back to school for 2 weeks.  ONE teacher got Covid from her husband, who got it at work, and the schools went back to 100% remote learning until February.  Now, they have split sessions.  Kids are in schools 4 days a week, but no individual kid is there more than 2.  So, some kids go Monday and Tuesday, while the rest are remote learning.  No kids at all on Wednesday, but then the other kids go to school on Thursday and Friday while those in school on Monday and Tuesday are home.  After Spring Break, the entire school district will be 100% remote learning for 4 weeks, then it's back to 3 days remote / 2 days in-school for the remainder of the year.

That's kinda like we did to start 2021. We moved to 4 full days back earlier this month.

Our school will be remote the week after spring break.

Half of my son's class is remote because two of the kids had covid. They only quarantine the kids who sit by him. Which wasn't my son.

[TK0001 97]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Ahhh.  So you believe the same stupid sh*t as him.  Got anything to support that stance?  

You said you don't disparage the use of masks. If you believe they have no affect whatsoever, why do you not disparage their use?

My "anything" to support the stance is you're less likely to get snot on you if I sneezed in your direction while wearing a mask. Maybe it's like trying to catch mosquitos with a chain link fence, but if you did wave one around a swarm, a few of them bastards would end up dead on the metal part. So yes, they have some affect, but not enough to make an impact upon the movement of the virus.

[Strike 3,963]

4 minutes ago, TK0001 said:

You said you don't disparage the use of masks. If you believe they have no affect whatsoever, why do you not disparage their use?

My "anything" to support the stance is you're less likely to get snot on you if I sneezed in your direction while wearing a mask. Maybe it's like trying to catch mosquitos with a chain link fence, but if you did wave one around a swarm, a few of them bastards would end up dead on the metal part. So yes, they have some affect, but not enough to make an impact upon the movement of the virus.

Where did I say masks have no effect?  WTF are you talking about?  You're starting an argument without even knowing my stance on the issue you want to argue about.  LOL.  GFY.

[Cdub100 3,380]

30 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Link to CDC saying common cold has had positive covid test results?   

Flu cases are not being counted as covid - this study (as well as the national testing data) prove it.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html

"A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.”

I cannot wait for you to spin this.

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html

"A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.”

I cannot wait for you to spin this.

That's referring to antibody tests.   Positive antibody tests aren't counted as cases. From that link: "Note: Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2."

[TK0001 97]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Where did I say masks have no effect?  WTF are you talking about?  You're starting an argument without even knowing my stance on the issue you want to argue about.  LOL.  GFY.

Well I have asked you several times to explain your point. I have clearly laid out mine. You appear to not want to engage, rather you just want to lash out and not make a commitment to anything of substance whatsoever. Guys like you are a dime a dozen on social media. Boring, predictable, lacking in humor or the ability to articulate yourself. You flee from discussion. The idea of exchanging thought is your kryptonite. 

So my analysis of you stands: you follow Tim around merely to denigrate his thoughts.

[TK0001 97]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That's referring to antibody tests.   Positive antibody tests aren't counted as cases.

They were, for a long time. A lot of states were not separating the two. 

[Cdub100 3,380]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That's referring to antibody tests.   Positive antibody tests aren't counted as cases. From that link: "Note: Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2."

It's referring to positive COVID19 anti-body test. It clearly states if you test positive for COVID19 that it might just be from antibodies from the common cold.

[Strike 3,963]

2 minutes ago, TK0001 said:

Well I have asked you several times to explain your point. I have clearly laid out mine. You appear to not want to engage, rather you just want to lash out and not make a commitment to anything of substance whatsoever. Guys like you are a dime a dozen on social media. Boring, predictable, lacking in humor or the ability to articulate yourself. You flee from discussion. The idea of exchanging thought is your kryptonite. 

So my analysis of you stands: you follow Tim around merely to denigrate his thoughts.

Dude, there are 279 pages to this thread.  You can find my stance repeatedly stated throughout it.  Get back to me after educating yourself.  Don't show up a year later and make me reiterate things I've said a bunch of times before.  And, you're right.  I don't want to engage.  With YOU.  All you have done since coming back is argue with people.  I'll pass. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Masks help, but not significantly?  That's your stance?  ROFLMAO!!!!!

 

On 3/10/2021 at 11:05 AM, TimHauck said:

I've never said masks were "critical," just that they helped.   I was arguing with you when you were claiming they made it worse and I'd stand by that.

They say you should still wear a mask after the vaccine because they're not sure.    I imagine that may change once they have more data and I think mask restrictions will continue to ease as the numbers continue to improve overall.

 

On 3/10/2021 at 7:04 AM, TimHauck said:

I’m not pro lockdown but you realize the goal of lockdowns is essentially getting people to “stay home and away from other people,” right?

Most people never really said masks were that critical, just that they help.  I agree I think it’s dumb when people say things like “you’re killing people by not wearing a mask!”  I think the issue is that it’s such a simple thing, if people can’t be bothered to do that then there’s not much hope in doing other things to end this .  Such as taking the vaccine.

All indications are the vaccine works by the way.  If you’re referring to the link posted in the vaccine thread about low antibody levels in old people, basically the same findings came out earlier on about people that had it, and supposedly their antibody levels were low only a few weeks later.  And yet there still have been very few reports of people getting it twice.

.

 

On 3/9/2021 at 4:56 PM, TimHauck said:

Masks probably didn't cure the flu

Social distancing, working/going to school from home, washing your hands and people actually staying home when they were sick likely did.

We're still testing for the flu.   Less than 0.1% positive.

 

On 2/19/2021 at 8:09 PM, TimHauck said:

For the record I think social distancing/no large gatherings and many people working/going to school from home probably had more to do with the drop in flu than masks (although I do think masks helped).

But we have a vaccine for flu, some immunity and it’s not a novel virus.  And yes, all signs point to it’s not as contagious as covid.   But you go ahead and keep believing they’re labeling flu as covid despite the fact that 99.94% of the nearly 300k flu tests in the past 6 months have been negative.

 

On 2/19/2021 at 9:03 AM, TimHauck said:

and no I don't think we should wear masks every flu season

 

On 12/15/2020 at 11:06 AM, TimHauck said:

So where are all these "studies" saying mask mandates actually result in increased infection??   Just tried to search and not finding any.    Do I need to go to "thedonald.com" to find them?

Closest I can find is this, based on a whole 4 participants, which was retracted - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

Are you just looking at cases from early on (despite probably at the same time complaining about false positives), and saying that must mean that it was increased because of masks?   Again, no one is saying masks will all the sudden stop infection, and even if we can agree that they "help," it's not going to be instantaneous (especially when you factor incubation period).    So if a place implements a mask mandate, if cases increase for the next 2 weeks, that doesn't mean that MASKS RESULTED IN INCREASED INFECTIONS!

Here's what I did find though:

Here's an interesting study which IMO actually also does a good job summarizing some of the prior studies and opinions, which studied areas with mask mandates vs. those without them, and found "The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates" - https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818#:~:text=Between April 8 and May 15%2C governors of fifteen states,retail stores) where maintaining six

Here's another  that says "Mask mandates are associated with a 25 to 46 per cent average reduction in weekly COVID-19 cases across Canada" - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007085638.htm

And another, "after implementation of mask mandates in 24 Kansas counties, the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed" - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

Another "duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality" - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

Another study finds masks work with hamsters - https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2139/5848814

CDC summary of a few different real world situations finds "Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2" - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

OK, I did my own research.  I think now I'm actually more convinced they do work.  Thanks cdub!

 

On 12/14/2020 at 11:44 PM, TimHauck said:

Ok I misread your sentence as saying this particular "study" said they increased infections.   Assuming you're referring to this one which was discussed a few pages back (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817), it didn't say '"MASKS DON'T WORK," it said there was not a significant difference, even though in their study a lower % of mask wearers got it than non-mask wearers.

But this study was only for seeing if it helped the wearer, it does not address that the primary purpose of masks are moreso to protect other people from the wearer.

You have not shared any links for actual studies saying masks actually INCREASE infection, because they don't exist.   A survey asking people if they wore masks at Home Depot is not a study.

 

On 12/29/2020 at 1:04 PM, TimHauck said:

Most studies show that mask mandated areas saw better results than non mask mandated areas.  At worst (best for you), some results have not been significantly significant.   Haven't seen any studies except 1 based on 4 people that was retracted that actually claims masks made it worse.    Looking at case numbers especially where masks were mandated early on and comparing to when it hadn't even spread yet and/or it was impossible to get tests is crazy.   No one is saying masks will stop the spread, but they can't hurt.

 

 

On 1/5/2021 at 8:42 AM, TimHauck said:

Because covid is more contagious than the flu...

And it’s not just masks, probably not even mainly masks.  It’s social distancing and many people working and going to school from home.

 

On 1/3/2021 at 11:16 AM, TimHauck said:

In stores yes and some workplaces, everywhere else not so much.

I don’t think they should be expected to, but most people don’t wear them when seeing friends or family though.   For example here is an op-Ed from the “Provincial Health Officer” for British Columbia - she knows masks aren’t perfect, but they help, and also knows most people aren’t going to wear them at family/social gatherings which is where a lot of recent infections are coming from: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/dr-bonnie-henry-op-ed-why-b-c-doesn-t-have-a-universal-mask-mandate-1.5191721

 

On 1/5/2021 at 10:49 AM, TimHauck said:

Because masks don't stop the spread, but wearing them is better than not wearing them.    Most studies show that areas with better mask compliance fared better than those with worse compliance.

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

20 minutes ago, TK0001 said:

They were, for a long time. A lot of states were not separating the two. 

Fair enough.  Well they were wrong to do that obviously.

 

20 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

It's referring to positive COVID19 anti-body test. It clearly states if you test positive for COVID19 that it might just be from antibodies from the common cold.

It also clearly states "Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2."

[TK0001 97]

52 minutes ago, Strike said:

Dude, there are 279 pages to this thread.  You can find my stance repeatedly stated throughout it.  Get back to me after educating yourself.  Don't show up a year later and make me reiterate things I've said a bunch of times before.  And, you're right.  I don't want to engage.  With YOU.  All you have done since coming back is argue with people.  I'll pass. 

Like I said, discourse is your kryptonite. You could easily restate your (no doubt) simple stance on the matter, but would rather just lash out.

Dime a dozen. Completely typical.

[TimHauck 1,799]

56 minutes ago, Strike said:

Dude, there are 279 pages to this thread.  You can find my stance repeatedly stated throughout it.  Get back to me after educating yourself.  Don't show up a year later and make me reiterate things I've said a bunch of times before.  

Got it, so you’re refusing to do what you were demanding me to do.  “ROFLMAO”

[Strike 3,963]

12 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Got it, so you’re refusing to do what you were demanding me to do.  “ROFLMAO”

If I'd have done my own research I would have found awesome posts like:

Quote

OK, I did my own research.  I think now I'm actually more convinced they do work.  Thanks cdub!

And somehow you think this supports your "position" that masks help insignificantly.  ROFLMAO.

 

[Strike 3,963]

20 minutes ago, TK0001 said:

Like I said, discourse is your kryptonite. You could easily restate your (no doubt) simple stance on the matter, but would rather just lash out.

Dime a dozen. Completely typical.

Sorry, just have no use for stupid games.    You do you, though.

[TK0001 97]

1 hour ago, Cdub100 said:

It's referring to positive COVID19 anti-body test. It clearly states if you test positive for COVID19 that it might just be from antibodies from the common cold.

No, it's clearly stating if you're testing positive for COVID19 antibodies, the antibodies may have been produced from a past coronavirus infection.

Where in this does it say flu cases are being counted as COVID? 

[TK0001 97]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Sorry, just have no use for stupid games.    You do you, though.

Okay then.

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

If I'd have done my own research I would have found awesome posts like:

And somehow you think this supports your "position" that masks help insignificantly.  ROFLMAO.

 

That's the best you got?

That was literally one of the ones I just posted (and already said that the closest I probably came to saying that was when I posted the links to various studies), and I said I did not say they helped significantly, literally in that same post said "Again, no one is saying masks will all the sudden stop infection, and even if we can agree that they "help," it's not going to be instantaneous (especially when you factor incubation period)."

[Strike 3,963]

Just now, TimHauck said:

That's the best you got?

That was literally one of the ones I just posted (and already said that the closest I probably came to saying that was when I posted the links to various studies), and I said I did not say they helped significantly, literally in that same post said "Again, no one is saying masks will all the sudden stop infection, and even if we can agree that they "help," it's not going to be instantaneous (especially when you factor incubation period)."

Yeah, where do you think I got it Einstein?  So, now your stance is that unless you say "helped significantly" we should interpret a comment of " I'm actually more convinced they do work " as "helped insignificantly"?  Are you focking high?   Here's another good one:

Quote

Most studies show that areas with better mask compliance fared better than those with worse compliance.

Should I assume that means you don't think masks help significantly? 

[Cdub100 3,380]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Fair enough.  Well they were wrong to do that obviously.

 

It also clearly states "Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2."

On a viral test. This is an antibody test. There's a huge difference. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yeah, where do you think I got it Einstein?  So, now your stance is that unless you say "helped significantly" we should interpret a comment of " I'm actually more convinced they do work " as "helped insignificantly"?  Are you focking high?   Here's another good one:

Should I assume that means you don't think masks help significantly? 

Did you read the other 10+ quotes I posted?  I think those are all pretty consistent.  Give me a sec, I'll find some of your posts where you don't speak kindly of masks, and then one where you accuse me of cherrypicking a single post.

Hypocrite.

[TK0001 97]

16 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Did you read the other 10+ quotes I posted?  I think those are all pretty consistent.  Give me a sec, I'll find some of your posts where you don't speak kindly of masks, and then one where you accuse me of cherrypicking a single post.

Hypocrite.

I guess I don't understand why you would engage with a person who couldn't care less about having an actual conversation.

[TK0001 97]

20 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

On a viral test. This is an antibody test. There's a huge difference. 

Again, what does this have to do with the flu being reported as COVID? Honest question.

[Cdub100 3,380]

1 minute ago, TK0001 said:

Again, what does this have to do with the flu being reported as COVID? Honest question.

It's just another example of COVID19 being over-counted and that positive covid test results are not correct.

Politicians use these bogus test results to force lockdowns and keep the economy from opening up.

Does that answer your question?

[TK0001 97]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

It's just another example of COVID19 being over-counted and that positive covid test results are not correct.

Politicians use these bogus test results to force lockdowns and keep the economy from opening up.

Does that answer your question?

No, not at all.

The link you posted is about antibody tests. So, they test a person to see if they have had COVID-19 and fought it off. The tests comes back positive. Indicating the patient did have COVID-19 and fought it off. The disclaimer you're eluding to is saying well hold up, it could be detecting ABs in your blood from when you fought off the common cold in previous years.

From what I see, this has nothing to do with counting flu cases as COVID-19 cases.

[Strike 3,963]

32 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Did you read the other 10+ quotes I posted?  I think those are all pretty consistent.  Give me a sec, I'll find some of your posts where you don't speak kindly of masks, and then one where you accuse me of cherrypicking a single post.

Hypocrite.

Yes, and at best we can conclude that you're wishy washy on this topic.  And whenever any of us see ONE of your quotes we don't have the other 10+ available as reference to try to figure out what your actual stance is.  That might be one of your problems.  You either change stances, or your wording, such that your stance is inconsistent.  You can't blame others for misinterpreting your stance when the message is convoluted over time. 

[Cdub100 3,380]

16 minutes ago, TK0001 said:

No, not at all.

The link you posted is about antibody tests. So, they test a person to see if they have had COVID-19 and fought it off. The tests comes back positive. Indicating the patient did have COVID-19 and fought it off. The disclaimer you're eluding to is saying well hold up, it could be detecting ABs in your blood from when you fought off the common cold in previous years.

From what I see, this has nothing to do with counting flu cases as COVID-19 cases.

"such as the one that causes the common cold"

The common cold was just used as one example. That's what "such as" means. They could be referencing a whole list of viruses that have our bodies produce anti-bodies. Unfortunately, they didn't provide a list. I also don't think I said previous years and I don't think the study mention years. 

It's pretty clear if you got the Flu vaccine and didn't get sick with the flu you wouldn't go get a test which means there's no chance they could mark you covid positive with a faulty test. which means fewer cases in areas with high flu vaccinations. 

We also know the tests are very flawed. Wasn't it Elon musk who got tested 6 times in one day and came back positive 50% of the time? So go ahead and add those in and what do we have? Covid positive numbers being massively overstated.

BL - Tim hack wanted a link that shows the Covid test has been confused with other viruses. I gave him one.

[TK0001 97]

3 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

"such as the one that causes the common cold"

The common cold was just used as one example. That's what "such as" means. They could be referencing a whole list of viruses that have our bodies produce anti-bodies. Unfortunately, they didn't provide a list. I also don't think I said previous years and I don't think the study mention years. 

It's pretty clear if you got the Flu vaccine and didn't get sick with the flu you wouldn't go get a test which means there's no chance they could mark you covid positive with a faulty test. which means fewer cases in areas with high flu vaccinations. 

We also know the tests are very flawed. Wasn't it Elon musk who got tested 6 times in one day and came back positive 50% of the time? So go ahead and add those in and what do we have? Covid positive numbers being massively overstated.

BL - Tim hack wanted a link that shows the Covid test has been confused with other viruses. I gave him one.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think the flu is a coronavirus like the common cold is, so I don't think the presence of flu antibodies would show up on COVID antibody tests. That why I was confused, and I still don't think your argument works, but at least I can see here you're coming from.

I have no doubt positives have been overcounted, though. But then you figure in the vast amount of people who mildly sick or not symptomatic that never got tested and the whole thing is a guessing game. That's why hospitalizations are the better metric.

[Cdub100 3,380]

1 minute ago, TK0001 said:

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think the flu is a coronavirus like the common cold is, so I don't think the presence of flu antibodies would show up on COVID antibody tests. That why I was confused, and I still don't think your argument works, but at least I can see here you're coming from.

I have no doubt positives have been overcounted, though. But then you figure in the vast amount of people who mildly sick or not symptomatic that never got tested and the whole thing is a guessing game. That's why hospitalizations are the better metric.

I agree. I read a study that said 40-60% of people are asymptomatic when it comes to the flu. I assume the same with covid. I believe there are thousands if not millions who have had COVID.

[TK0001 97]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

I agree. I read a study that said 40-60% of people are asymptomatic when it comes to the flu. I assume the same with covid. I believe there are thousands if not millions who have had COVID.

Yeah that's why I believe we are much closer to herd immunity, and may have already hit it, than people want to think. That and the presence of t-cells from former coronavirus infections (antibodies).

I think it's been around since late 2019.

[TimHauck 1,799]

24 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

"such as the one that causes the common cold"

The common cold was just used as one example. That's what "such as" means. They could be referencing a whole list of viruses that have our bodies produce anti-bodies. Unfortunately, they didn't provide a list. I also don't think I said previous years and I don't think the study mention years. 

It's pretty clear if you got the Flu vaccine and didn't get sick with the flu you wouldn't go get a test which means there's no chance they could mark you covid positive with a faulty test. which means fewer cases in areas with high flu vaccinations. 

We also know the tests are very flawed. Wasn't it Elon musk who got tested 6 times in one day and came back positive 50% of the time? So go ahead and add those in and what do we have? Covid positive numbers being massively overstated.

BL - Tim hack wanted a link that shows the Covid test has been confused with other viruses. I gave him one.

No I didn’t.  I wanted a link saying where the common cold has resulted in a positive covid test.  Still waiting, since a positive antibody test isn’t a positive covid test (and the link specifically said the cold could NOT result in a positive covid test).   And technically that link didn’t even say they know it’s happened, just that it “could have” happened.

[nobody 2,037]

This last page of posts is some of the most bizarre discourse I've ever seen.

[Fireballer 2,381]

JFC people, just stop.

 

[edjr 5,562]

4 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

JFC people, just stop.

 

I wear your moms g string as a mask

[edjr 5,562]

We are headed to encore again tonight.

[TimHauck 1,799]

5 hours ago, Strike said:

I have never disparaged the use of masks. EVER.  So fock off suggesting otherwise. 

This is a post I quoted earlier and you came at me for "cherrypicking:"

On 7/20/2020 at 4:12 PM, Strike said:

Seems like the perfect place for this.  Mexico has more mask use than just about any country, but their Covid cases are through the roof:

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/coronavirus/wearing-a-face-mask-is-mandatory-in-24-states/

But hey, masks work!!!

 

So here is your diatribe where you seemingly explained your stance.  Seems like a lot of wishy-washy talk, what's the summary here?   That masks "can" work, but they don't because people don't use them properly?

On 1/3/2021 at 9:48 PM, Strike said:

Tim,

Let me be very clear about where I stand regarding masks since you chose to cherry pick ONE post from a thread with almost 10,000 posts in it as representative of what you seem to think I believe.

Masks may, on some technical level, be helpful.  There are a lot of variables, and I will detail the ones that come to mind below, and you tell me if you think society in general is following best practices regarding masks.  Also, unfortunately there are no standards and everyone is using their own judgment on what they think is adequate.  That's stupid.

For masks to be effective:

- The mask itself needs to do something.  There are commercial masks available that should help but most of those have to be thrown away after use and I don't think most people are using those.  Most people are using some form of reusable cloth mask.  But what is a cloth mask?  No one has said what type of cloth to use.  Every type of cloth will have different characteristics regarding stopping things from getting through it.  You see all sorts of them when you go out.  We've been given multiple cloth masks from friends who made their own out of whatever cloth they had laying around.  Alyssa focking Milano got caught wearing a mask that was crocheted together with big old gaps in it.  The point is, you can't know how effective any given mask is since there are not standards.

-  Unless you're using a disposable mask and throwing them away after each use, you need to be washing your cloth mask before each use.  Do you think people are doing that?  I'm sure as hell not.  I'd guess we wash our masks every couple weeks but it's not on any kind of schedule. 

- Many of the masks people wear don't fit really well.  So, the virus is still getting out.  It may not be as direct as not wearing a mask at all but this idea of "wear a mask" but not defining what that mask should entail, how well it should contain the virus, etc......makes this a really poor preventative measure that is giving people who buy in to it a false sense of security (see pic posted earlier today).

- In order for masks to be effective you can't touch them.  Once you touch it in the area that contacts your mouth/nose you've compromised it's effectiveness.  Do you think ANYONE is NOT touching their mask after putting it on?  They may be LESS effective if you contaminate it with Covid because now the Covid is on the mask and when you breath you just push it towards anyone in front of you.

For the reasons above, and I'm sure others I'm not thinking of at the moment, I don't believe masks are EFFECTIVE even though on a technical level they may be capable of helping.

As others have said as well, I wear my mask for the comfort level of others.  But I don't believe they're actually helping prevent the spread of this thing. 

Please save the above to a text file so that the next time you want to misrepresent my beliefs re: masks you can go back and reread it.