# Stuff and Things > COVID & VACCINES >  How mask wearing can help those who need help

## Fall River

One More Reason to Wear a Mask: Youâll Get Less Sick From COVID-19 | UC San Francisco

Some talk-show hosts got it wrong.  Masks can make you less sick if you contract the virus. 

And they haven't been telling that story.

----------

dinosaur (11-06-2021),Lone Gunman (11-06-2021),Swedgin (11-08-2021),teeceetx (11-07-2021)

----------


## Esdraelon

So... SARS-COV-2 once inside the body does not replicate?  What's this happy horseshit?

----------

Brat (11-08-2021),JustPassinThru (11-19-2021),Lone Gunman (11-06-2021),WhoKnows (11-06-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Masks can make you less sick if you contract the virus.


What a crock of manure.

----------

Brat (11-08-2021),Great American/banned (11-07-2021),Lone Gunman (11-06-2021),WhoKnows (11-06-2021)

----------


## WarriorRob

I'm surprised they haven't said masks help with erectile dysfunction :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Brat (11-08-2021),JustPassinThru (11-19-2021),Lone Gunman (11-06-2021),Mainecoons (11-08-2021)

----------


## dinosaur

It's interesting information, but not persuasive.  Ms Gandhi makes the mistake of using anecdotal stories and not so scientific studies to support the theory.

Viruses replicate faster than the body's immune system can respond.  That's why we get sick.  The body does respond, and in most cases attacks and kills off the invading pathogens.  That's why we get well.

The theory is that less initial viral load will sufficiently slow the initial growth so that the body's response ramps up as quickly as the virus does, and therefore results in lesser severity.  Sounds good in principle, but I would need more than some cruise ship stories or hamster masks to convince me this is true.  

It is difficult for me to believe that a mask is going to be that effective at protecting me in most cases.  I do believe that my wearing a mask might protect others.  Maybe not from the virus, but at least I am not spraying them when I talk.  As I have gotten older, I have become more aware of just how much we "shed" normal fluids in normal activities.  Yuck!

----------

pjohns (11-09-2021),teeceetx (11-07-2021),WhoKnows (11-06-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> It's interesting information, but not persuasive.  Ms Gandhi makes the mistake of using anecdotal stories and not so scientific studies to support the theory.
> 
> Viruses replicate faster than the body's immune system can respond.  That's why we get sick.  The body does respond, and in most cases attacks and kills off the invading pathogens.  That's why we get well.
> 
> The theory is that less initial viral load will sufficiently slow the initial growth so that the body's response ramps up as quickly as the virus does, and therefore results in lesser severity.  Sounds good in prinicple, but I would need more that some cruise ship or hamster masks to convince me this is true.  
> 
> It is difficult for me to believe that a mask is going to be that effective at protecting me in most cases.  I do believe that my wearing a mask might protect others.  Maybe not from the virus, but at least I am not spraying them when I talk.  As I have gotten older, I have become more aware of just how much we "shed" normal fluids in normal activities.  Yuck!


The bottom line is that even someone with symptoms would have to cough in your face with your mouth open to put you at risk of anything.

This was discussed many, many times at the outset and just ignored. 

And the commercial masks you see people wear just can't filter the aerosolized COVID particle because of how small it is. 

Other than a custom fitted, properly worn N95 mask (which also isn't 100% effective) masks are utterly useless.

----------

dinosaur (11-06-2021)

----------


## ruthless terrier

we should probably sleep with condoms on. added protection you know.

----------

Brat (11-08-2021),Lone Gunman (11-06-2021),WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## Neo

The spread of covid is generally people touching surfaces and then touching your eyes nose or mouth with your hands. The mask stops you touching your mouth…..the real aid to stop the spreading of covid is continuously using hand sanitizer…touching things…..is a no no without using hand sanitizer.

----------

dinosaur (11-06-2021)

----------


## Thom Paine

> we should probably sleep with condoms on. added protection you know.


One should always stand ready for whatever comes
his way.

----------


## Neo

> One should always stand ready for whatever comes
> his way.


A true martial artist is prepared for everything, wearing a condom on your tongue covers all threats.

----------

Thom Paine (11-07-2021),WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

dentists love masks:


The new oral hygiene issue — caused by, you guessed it, wearing a mask all the time to prevent the spread of the coronavirus — is leading to all kinds of dental disasters like decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath.
*'Mask mouth' is a seriously stinky side effect of wearing ...*
nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearin…

----------

Lone Gunman (11-06-2021),teeceetx (11-07-2021),WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## teeceetx

We sat and listened as EXPERTS told us masks do VERY LITTLE to prevent the spread of the virus.

We listened as they all said masks LEAK around the sides because they are not TIGHT FITTING, and that is why they are ineffective.

We listened as they told us most masks, aside from N95's, would not prevent virus from passing THROUGH them.

We listened as they said masks only prevent one from EXHALING virus in droplets, but do little against INHALING the virus.

They seem to be making this up as they go along!

All these supposed expert scientists, doctors, and virologists proclaim all sorts of ever-changing FACTS!

----------

Rutabaga (11-07-2021),WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> We sat and listened as EXPERTS told us masks do VERY LITTLE to prevent the spread of the virus.
> 
> We listened as they all said masks LEAK around the sides because they are not TIGHT FITTING, and that is why they are ineffective.
> 
> We listened as they told us most masks, aside from N95's, would not prevent virus from passing THROUGH them.
> 
> We listened as they said masks only prevent one from EXHALING virus in droplets, but do little against INHALING the virus.
> 
> *They seem to be making this up as they go along!*
> ...


 :Headbang:

----------

teeceetx (11-07-2021)

----------


## Great American/banned

Masks are for dopes.

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> Masks are for dopes.

----------

Great American/banned (11-07-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> We sat and listened as EXPERTS told us masks do VERY LITTLE to prevent the spread of the virus.
> 
> We listened as they all said masks LEAK around the sides because they are not TIGHT FITTING, and that is why they are ineffective.
> 
> We listened as they told us most masks, aside from N95's, would not prevent virus from passing THROUGH them.
> 
> We listened as they said masks only prevent one from EXHALING virus in droplets, but do little against INHALING the virus.
> 
> They seem to be making this up as they go along!
> ...


Here's the problem. Those of us who know the truth via actual science have been shunned. And threatened. So we shut up. 

I'm not going to risk my career because people are stupid and don't listen anyway. If fact, I was told this outright. Shut up, or get out. Not lying. 

ANYONE who has been following Fauci for the duration of his career knows what a sham he is. He's no expert. Except at lying to make money.

----------

teeceetx (11-07-2021)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> I'm surprised they haven't said masks help with erectile dysfunction


What? You mean I've been duped into wearing that damned thing?

----------

phoenyx (11-07-2021),WarriorRob (11-07-2021),WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## Fall River

> So... SARS-COV-2 once inside the body does not replicate?  What's this happy horseshit?


First tell me where you read that it does not replicate once inside the body?

----------


## Fall River

> What a crock of manure.


Sounds like you may have been totally indoctrinated by Clay & Buck.  First they said masks don't work.  After weeks of saying that, they changed it to, "Masks work minimally".  If they are to be judged by the same standards they use to judge Dr. Fauci, that would make them liars too.

----------


## Fall River

> I'm surprised they haven't said masks help with erectile dysfunction


When you wrote the above reply concerning masks, I'm guessing you probably got so excited you got an erection.  See, just talking about masks did the trick for you.   :Smiley20:

----------


## Well Bonded

> Sounds like you may have been totally indoctrinated by Clay & Buck.  First they said masks don't work.  After weeks of saying that, they changed it to, "Masks work minimally".  If they are to be judged by the same standards they use to judge Dr. Fauci, that would make them liars too.


Hardly, I just have a lot of experience with masks and respirators and understand what they can and cannot do and I understand the improper use of either can be more dangerous than not using one at all.

As for Fauci, he's a long ago proven fraudster and liar.

----------


## Fall River

> It's interesting information, but not persuasive.  Ms Gandhi makes the mistake of using anecdotal stories and not so scientific studies to support the theory.


Her study design was worldwide Epidemiological.  It's not a story, it's a serious scientific study that was published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.   






> Viruses replicate faster than the body's immune system can respond.  That's why we get sick.  The body does respond, and in most cases attacks and kills off the invading pathogens.  That's why we get well.


If you will read my opening post and the link, nobody said we don't get sick, then respond and get well.  




> The theory is that less initial viral load will sufficiently slow the initial growth so that the body's response ramps up as quickly as the virus does, and therefore results in lesser severity.  Sounds good in principle, but I would need more than some cruise ship stories or hamster masks to convince me this is true.


It's not just cruise ship stories. As I said above, she studied worldwide epidemiological patterns.  Several countries were mentioned.    




> It is difficult for me to believe that a mask is going to be that effective at protecting me in most cases.  I do believe that my wearing a mask might protect others.  Maybe not from the virus, but at least I am not spraying them when I talk.  As I have gotten older, I have become more aware of just how much we "shed" normal fluids in normal activities.  Yuck!


I have no idea how effective it would be at protecting you because everyone is different.  It wasn't stated that mask wearing would provide the same outcome for everyone.  A lot depends on a person's health status.

Even well respected medications don't provide the same outcome for everyone. Antibiotics are known for saving lives but sometimes people die from infections despite taking antibiotics.

----------


## Well Bonded

> I'm surprised they haven't said masks help with erectile dysfunction


Actually they do and using 2 is even better, one to mask the smell and another to cover you eyes with, the combination helps keep it from getting so soft you realize the mistake you are about to make and run away.

----------


## Fall River

> The bottom line is that even someone with symptoms would have to cough in your face with your mouth open to put you at risk of anything.
> 
> This was discussed many, many times at the outset and just ignored. 
> 
> And the commercial masks you see people wear just can't filter the aerosolized COVID particle because of how small it is. 
> 
> Other than a custom fitted, properly worn N95 mask (which also isn't 100% effective) masks are utterly useless.


Most likely, if you work in a hospital setting with COVID-19 patients, you will need the best mask you can find because you will be exposed to virus particles in the air all day long.  But the average person doesn't have anywhere near that exposure.  There's a whole range of exposure possibilities from very small to very large.  So, no mask is completely useless, they just provide varying degrees of protection.  The more protection the better of course if you are obese and/or have many underlying conditions. 

Virus particles are small but even a commercial mask will cut down on the amount of virus particles you are exposed to. Don't forget, even a cheap mask contains perhaps tens of thousands or even millions of fibers and the virus particle is blind so it can't look for a hole to go through. Therefore it's just as likely to get snagged by a fiber as it is to find a hole. Maybe even more likely to get snagged if the fibers overlap each other.  In other words, there may be a hole but then another fiber right in back of that hole.

----------


## Fall River

> we should probably sleep with condoms on. added protection you know.


No, that would only encourage you to take more risks and everyone knows that even a condom doesn't guarantee 100% protection.  :Smiley20:

----------


## WhoKnows

> Most likely, if you work in a hospital setting with COVID-19 patients, you will need the best mask you can find because you will be exposed to virus particles in the air all day long.  But the average person doesn't have anywhere near that exposure.  There's a whole range of exposure possibilities from very small to very large.  So, no mask is completely useless, they just provide varying degrees of protection.  The more protection the better of course if you are obese and/or have many underlying conditions. 
> 
> Virus particles are small but even a commercial mask will cut down on the amount of virus particles you are exposed to. Don't forget, even a cheap mask contains perhaps tens of thousands or even millions of fibers and the virus particle is blind so it can't look for a hole to go through. Therefore it's just as likely to get snagged by a fiber as it is to find a hole. Maybe even more likely to get snagged if the fibers overlap each other.  In other words, there may be a hole but then another fiber right in back of that hole.


That is simply not true. The aerosolized viral particles are too small to be captured by commercially available masks. 

It's like a colander. If the liquid can pass through one, it can pass through them all. Even if you offset them. 

So yes, there are some masks that are completely useless. And even the best of them, like a custom fitted, properly worn N95 mask is only 90% effective. 

Most commercially available masks won't filter anything smaller than 0.25 microns. 

How coronavirus compares to the worlds smallest particles | World Economic Forum

https://filti.com/mask-ratings-particle-sizes/

----------


## Fall River

> The spread of covid is generally people touching surfaces and then touching your eyes nose or mouth with your hands. The mask stops you touching your mouth…..the real aid to stop the spreading of covid is continuously using hand sanitizer…touching things…..is a no no without using hand sanitizer.


All through the pandemic I have never once used a hand sanitizer.  I just continued using Ivory bar soap, and I didn't practice obsessive hand washing.  I live in Florida and only wore a mask when I had no choice, like in the doctor's office. In other words, I seldom wore a mask. Why? Because I have faith in my immune system.  It works.

----------

WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## Fall River

> That is simply not true. The aerosolized viral particles are too small to be captured by commercially available masks. 
> 
> It's like a colander. If the liquid can pass through one, it can pass through them all. Even if you offset them. 
> 
> So yes, there are some masks that are completely useless. And even the best of them, like a custom fitted, properly worn N95 mask is only 90% effective. 
> 
> Most commercially available masks won't filter anything smaller than 0.25 microns. 
> 
> How coronavirus compares to the worlds smallest particles | World Economic Forum
> ...



What you say is simply not true. It doesn't matter how small the viral particles are.

Liquid through a colander?  Come-on, you should know better than that. Liquids flow one way and the other and seek their own level with the help of gravity.  Particles don't behave that way.

Your first link only proves that the viral particle is very small, which I already knew. 

Your second link is an advertisement for "Filti Masks".  


> Here at Filti, we have been able to design and create *a patent pending filter material* that uses nano fiber....

----------


## WhoKnows

> What you say is simply not true. It doesn't matter how small the viral particles are.
> 
> Liquid through a colander?  Come-on, you should know better than that. Liquids flow one way and the other and seek their own level with the help of gravity.  Particles don't behave that way.
> 
> Your first link only proves that the viral particle is very small, which I already knew. 
> 
> Your second link is an advertisement for "Filti Masks".


I have shown the size of the COVID particle and that most commercially available masks can't filter out something that small. There is plenty of data about this online. You can believe it or not. Makes no difference to me, or the reality of the current situation. I'm not here to convince anyone.

----------


## El Guapo

> It’s likely that face masks, by blocking even some of the virus-carrying droplets you inhale, can reduce your risk of falling seriously ill from COVID-19, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at UC San Francisco.
> 
> “The more virus you get into your body, the more sick you are likely to get,” she said.


Even more fuckity fuckwit fuckwitry for fuckwits  :Geez: 

I didn't think it was possible to get any fuckwittier...

----------

WhoKnows (11-07-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> One More Reason to Wear a Mask: Youâll Get Less Sick From COVID-19 | UC San Francisco
> 
> Some talk-show hosts got it wrong.  Masks can make you less sick if you contract the virus. 
> 
> And they haven't been telling that story.


Unless you wear eye protection along with a mask they aren't really doing you any good.

It can't really be shown that wearing them is protecting anyone else either.

The virus is so small and the droplets carrying it as well, you will reduce to some degree how much gets out but you certainly aren't preventing the virus from spreading.

----------


## Fall River

> Hardly, I just have a lot of experience with masks and respirators and understand what they can and cannot do and I understand the improper use of either can be more dangerous than not using one at all.
> 
> As for Fauci, he's a long ago proven fraudster and liar.


So Fauci is worse than Clay & Buck?  Hmm, I'll keep that in mind.

----------


## Fall River

> I have shown the size of the COVID particle and that most commercially available masks can't filter out something that small. There is plenty of data about this online. You can believe it or not. Makes no difference to me, or the reality of the current situation. I'm not here to convince anyone.


It doesn't matter because we're not talking about filtering out all the particles, were just talking about cutting down on the volume of exposure.

----------


## Oceander

But, a mask only works for one person if everyone else in the world is wearing one, too.

It's the quantum physics of masqueing.

Also known as Kabuki Theater.

----------


## Fall River

> Unless you wear eye protection along with a mask they aren't really doing you any good.
> 
> It can't really be shown that wearing them is protecting anyone else either.
> 
> The virus is so small and the droplets carrying it as well, *you will reduce to some degree how much gets out* but you certainly aren't preventing the virus from spreading.


Yes, you will reduce how much gets out and how much gets in. And that's the point which was clearly explained in a published article that included a study covering more than 7 countries.

----------


## WhoKnows

> It doesn't matter because we're not talking about filtering out all the particles, were just talking about cutting down on the volume of exposure.


There is no scientific data to suggest "volume of exposure" has any effect at all with COVID. If there is, please post a scientific journal article that suggests this please. 

"Viral load" was initially described for how T-Cells react during the HIV crisis. It doesn't pertain to COVID, as far as I've read. Again, if you're read differently, I would be happy to read what you have and perhaps even change my mind.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Yes, you will reduce how much gets out and how much gets in. And that's the point which was clearly explained in a published article that included a study covering more than 7 countries.


Kindly cite this published article. Thanks.

----------


## Fall River

> But, a mask only works for one person if everyone else in the world is wearing one, too.
> 
> It's the quantum physics of masqueing.
> 
> Also known as Kabuki Theater.



Sorry, Mr. Kabuki, but that's not totally true.  The purpose of the study was to prove that masks reduce the severity of viral infection. And the study looked at many countries where everyone wore masks because that's what they needed to prove it.  But once it's proven, any individual can benefit from the knowledge by wearing a mask.

----------


## Fall River

> Kindly cite this published article. Thanks.



Sure, just go back to my opening post and click on the link.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Sure, just go back to my opening post and click on the link.


Sorry, but I read this when you first posted it. 

The journal article does not pass any muster of any kind. Even when you find the source material it is full of conjecture. None of them actually did real double blind, randomized studies on the matter. This is fake science to the highest order. 

This reminds me of one of the Logic Fallacies I posted about in my thread. It's called "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" where a bunch of cherry picked data is presented with a preconceived outcome in mind. 

*9) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy*

This fallacy gets its colorful name from an anecdote about a Texan who fires his gun at a barn wall, and then proceeds to paint a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes. He then points at the bullet-riddled target as evidence of his expert marksmanship.
Speakers who rely on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy tend to cherry-pick data clusters based on a predetermined conclusion. Instead of letting a full spectrum of evidence lead them to a logical conclusion, they find patterns and correlations in support of their goals, and ignore evidence that contradicts them or suggests the clusters weren't actually statistically significant. 

15 Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

----------


## Well Bonded

> So Fauci is worse than Clay & Buck?  Hmm, I'll keep that in mind.


You are not too bright are you.

Clay and Buck are entertainers, Fauci is claiming to be an expert when it comes to virus's, a task he has screwed up not only once, but at least twice and in the process has allowed millions to die, in part, because of either gross incompetence or worse.

----------


## Well Bonded

> It doesn't matter because we're not talking about filtering out all the particles, were just talking about cutting down on the volume of exposure.


Which is directly controlled by filtering.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Sorry, Mr. Kabuki, but that's not totally true.  The purpose of the study was to prove that masks reduce the severity of viral infection.


Which in of itself is false, once infected the job is done, additional virus exposure does not increase that infection. 




> And the study looked at many countries where everyone wore masks because that's what they needed to prove it.  But once it's proven, any individual can benefit from the knowledge by wearing a mask.


In other words the study searched for the results they needed to prove it to be correct, that's not research, that's an attempt to prove a opinion.

----------

WhoKnows (11-08-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> The spread of covid is generally people touching surfaces and then touching your eyes nose or mouth with your hands. The mask stops you touching your mouth..the real aid to stop the spreading of covid is continuously using hand sanitizertouching things..is a no no without using hand sanitizer.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Actually, in that regard, the mask makes things worse, not better.  It acts as a collection device, transfers whatever collects on its surface to fingers when the wearer removes it, and then when the wearer touches their mouth, presto, transfer.

Sorry, but in that regard masks are almost certainly making things worse, not better.

----------

WhoKnows (11-08-2021),Wildrose (11-09-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Sorry, Mr. Kabuki, but that's not totally true.  The purpose of the study was to prove that masks reduce the severity of viral infection. And the study looked at many countries where everyone wore masks because that's what they needed to prove it.  But once it's proven, any individual can benefit from the knowledge by wearing a mask.


/snicker


Sorry, boyo, but the propaganda is that everyone has to wear a mask to protect everyone else, which *necessarily* implies that the mask person A is wearing is not effective unless Persons B to Z are also wearing masks.

Which is utter bullshit.  If a mask works, it will work much better at filtering out spray that is more or less gently falling through the air, than it will at preventing forcefully expelled spray from a mouth that is less than a centimeter's distance from the mask.

for respiratory diseases in non-surgical theater settings, either masks work because they protect the wearer, or they do not work at all.  

And studies, hmmm, yeah, studies, .... there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

These studies are no better than statistics - worse-than-damned-lies dreamed up by crypto fascists to support the "Noble Lie" because they, in their infinite wisdom, think they know better than the rest of us.

----------

WhoKnows (11-08-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

Okay, so let's break down masks and wearing of masks.

The mask will limit larger particles transmitted from the possibly infected person to others, and, will adhere to a mask, in the protection to a mask wearer. Ie, someone coughing into your face, the larger particles will block them from getting in your mouth and nose, but not your eyes. A face shield would block mouth, eyes and nose from the larger particles.

The tiny particles get out, period, unless it is superior grade mask.

Alright then, that is the first part of masks and viruses, which is really projectile globs being coughed into someones face vs "other issues" regarding masks, transference, adjusting of masks, rate of adjustments daily, contact to eyes, nose and mouth during adjustments...inclusive of strings and the mask itself.

Obviously amplify some numbers regarding children, and their increased adjustments due to the annoyance and discomfort arising from the mask, but only in conjunction with a childs lack of experienced etiquette - of not coughing into another persons face.

So, how many adjusts do people do in a day with their masks, and, how many of those adjusts "accidentally" transfer globs of the virus to eyes, nose and mouth?

It would seem to me, that the optimum solution would be a face shield, with a worn mask and no removal or adjustment of the protective gear at all, until in a proven virus free environment...for the mask and shield combo to actually be beneficial regarding globs coughed into your face.

The above basically comes down to personal protocol disciplines, a shield and mask combo - and - a heavy monitoring of children using masks and shields, and, smaller particle transfers are unstoppable in any realistic sense.

Now, since none of the above is going to happen, and adults and children are going to adjust constantly during the day...I cannot see an advantageous realistic position to be taken for mask wearing.

----------

WhoKnows (11-08-2021)

----------


## Trinnity

> But, a mask only works for one person if everyone else in the world is wearing one, too.


No. They're useless. Completely useless.

----------

WhoKnows (11-08-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> One More Reason to Wear a Mask: Youâll Get Less Sick From COVID-19 | UC San Francisco
> 
> Some talk-show hosts got it wrong.  Masks can make you less sick if you contract the virus. 
> 
> And they haven't been telling that story.


The main effects of mask wearing are creating a false sense of invincibility an showing solidarity with all the other dolts thinking it's saving their lives.

----------


## Fall River

> You are not too bright are you.
> 
> Clay and Buck are entertainers, Fauci is claiming to be an expert when it comes to virus's, a task he has screwed up not only once, but at least twice and in the process has allowed millions to die, in part, because of either gross incompetence or worse.


Where did you get that information?  Your source please.

----------


## Well Bonded

Search NIH Fauci and AIDS.

----------


## Fall River

> Sorry, but I read this when you first posted it. 
> 
> The journal article does not pass any muster of any kind. Even when you find the source material it is full of conjecture. None of them actually did real double blind, randomized studies on the matter. This is fake science to the highest order. 
> 
> This reminds me of one of the Logic Fallacies I posted about in my thread. It's called "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" where a bunch of cherry picked data is presented with a preconceived outcome in mind. 
> 
> *9) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy*
> 
> This fallacy gets its colorful name from an anecdote about a Texan who fires his gun at a barn wall, and then proceeds to paint a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes. He then points at the bullet-riddled target as evidence of his expert marksmanship.
> ...



On the link I provided it says the following: *Because the new Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 is potentially lethal, experiments on masking and disease severity have been necessarily limited to animals.*  And in that same paragraph she describes a study done with hamsters.  

Under the heading, "Not A New Idea" She says, "The idea that viral dose, also known as viral inoculum, determines the degree of illness is not new....Descriptions of a dose-mortality curve - how much of a virus is needed to cause death in an animal - were first published in 1938.

You said you want a real double blind, randomized study on the matter.  How is that possible?  If you have half of the test subjects not wearing a mask, how would you fool them into thinking they were wearing a mask?   :Smiley20: 
A double blind study is commonly done with pills where one group takes a pill that has the active ingredient and the other group takes a placebo.

----------


## Fall River

> Actually, in that regard, the mask makes things worse, not better.  It acts as a collection device, transfers whatever collects on its surface to fingers when the wearer removes it, and then when the wearer touches their mouth, presto, transfer.
> 
> Sorry, but in that regard masks are almost certainly making things worse, not better.


So what you're suggesting is: instead of having the viral particles collect on the mask, let them collect in the lungs?

----------


## Brat

Horseshit.

----------


## WhoKnows

> On the link I provided it says the following: *Because the new Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 is potentially lethal, experiments on masking and disease severity have been necessarily limited to animals.*  And in that same paragraph she describes a study done with hamsters.  
> 
> Under the heading, "Not A New Idea" She says, "The idea that viral dose, also known as viral inoculum, determines the degree of illness is not new....Descriptions of a dose-mortality curve - how much of a virus is needed to cause death in an animal - were first published in 1938.
> 
> You said you want a real double blind, randomized study on the matter.  How is that possible?  If you have half of the test subjects not wearing a mask, how would you fool them into thinking they were wearing a mask?  
> A double blind study is commonly done with pills where one group takes a pill that has the active ingredient and the other group takes a placebo.


As you said, do the studies on animals. And they haven't done that with COVID. So basically, saying it without any medical science to back it up means it can't be a definitive conclusion. And therefore, should not be said at all. 

Again, much of the study surrounding "viral load" was done on T-Cell counts for HIV infections. It can't be superimposed as the same conclusion for all other viruses. That's not how it works.

----------

Brat (11-09-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

> So what you're suggesting is: instead of having the viral particles collect on the mask, let them collect in the lungs?


Define for me viral particles? Are they things that escape out of the mask anyways...or are you talking about projectile globs?

----------

Brat (11-09-2021)

----------


## Dan40

> I'm surprised they haven't said masks help with erectile dysfunction


And anal leakage! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Brat (11-09-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Define for me viral particles? Are they things that escape out of the mask anyways...or are you talking about projectile globs?


A virus is itself just a particle, it is not a living organism because it cannot reproduce and doesn't even metabolize.

Only once it joins with a host cell does it actually become a living organism by hijacking that cells reproductive system.

Viruses are the ultimate parasites.

This is why they can under certain circumstances be incredibly persistent in the environment.

Just a few years ago samples of the 1917-18 flu virus that devastated the globe were taken from bodies of people who died of it buried in permafrost.

Under the right circumstances they could quite possibly remain viable for centuries.

----------


## Wildrose

> As you said, do the studies on animals. And they haven't done that with COVID. So basically, saying it without any medical science to back it up means it can't be a definitive conclusion. And therefore, should not be said at all. 
> 
> Again, much of the study surrounding "viral load" was done on T-Cell counts for HIV infections. It can't be superimposed as the same conclusion for all other viruses. That's not how it works.


Viral loads and T Cell Counts are two very different things.  HIV infects T cells and highjacks their DNA so that they can't effectively combat the virus.  Eventually it causes T Cell Exhaustion in acute infections. 

Viral load is the amount of virus in the body usually measured by examining blood.

Very little work seems to have been done so far on Covid Virual Loads to determine at which what levels you become contagious.  It is simply assumed that if you are symptomatic you are contagious.  Some evidence exists we may be asymptomatic and still contagious but it's weak.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Viral loads and T Cell Counts are two very different things.  HIV infects T cells and highjacks their DNA so that they can't effectively combat the virus.  Eventually it causes T Cell Exhaustion in acute infections. 
> 
> Viral load is the amount of virus in the body usually measured by examining blood.
> 
> Very little work seems to have been done so far on Covid Virual Loads to determine at which what levels you become contagious.  It is simply assumed that if you are symptomatic you are contagious.  Some evidence exists we may be asymptomatic and still contagious but it's weak.


Thank you for your input. The fact is, that the higher the viral load, the more T-Cells become infected and the lower the normal T-Cell count. 

You describing the mode of infection is great, but doesn't really speak to my post at all.

----------


## Wildrose

> Thank you for your input. *The fact is, that the higher the viral load, the more T-Cells become infected and the lower the normal T-Cell count.*


No kidding, that's what I just pointed out.



> You describing the mode of infection is great, but doesn't really speak to my post at all.


You are conflating two very different things that have nothing to do with one another.

----------


## WhoKnows

> No kidding, that's what I just pointed out.
> You are conflating two very different things that have nothing to do with one another.


Thank you for your input. 

I'll let other make their own decision on this and come to their own conclusions.

----------


## Wildrose

> Actually, in that regard, the mask makes things worse, not better.  It acts as a collection device, transfers whatever collects on its surface to fingers when the wearer removes it, and then when the wearer touches their mouth, presto, transfer.
> 
> Sorry, but in that regard masks are almost certainly making things worse, not better.


The studies seem to show different outcomes based more on the prejudice of the person/group performing the study and their desired outcome.

Masks themselves are pretty well useless alone.  The virus spreads infects us by getting into the respiratory tract and your eyes drain directly into your sinuses.  If they eyes are not protected you still have a direct pathway for infection.

Masking is far more about power, control, and being part of the hip crowd that it is about protecting us.

----------


## Wildrose

> Thank you for your input. 
> 
> I'll let other make their own decision on this and come to their own conclusions.


Or you could just try to explain why HIV titers have anything to do with Covid?

----------


## WhoKnows

> Or you could just try to explain why HIV titers have anything to do with Covid?


Or you can quote where I said, or even alluded to, anything of the sort. 

I actually specifically said that "viral load" was studied in HIV and has not been in COVID. 

I often wonder if you actually read what people write, or just jump on anything, just to entertain yourself by arguing with them.

----------


## Wildrose

> Or you can quote where I said, or even alluded to, anything of the sort. 
> 
> I actually specifically said that "viral load" was studied in HIV and has not been in COVID. 
> 
> I often wonder if you actually read what people write, or just jump on anything, just to entertain yourself by arguing with them.


I did read it and no, that's not what you said.





> Again, much of the study surrounding "viral load" was done on T-Cell counts for HIV infections. It can't be superimposed as the same conclusion for all other viruses. That's not how it works.


Who is even trying to tie the two together?

----------


## WhoKnows

> I did read it and no, that's not what you said.
> Who is even trying to tie the two together?


Thank you for your input. 

I'll let others on these forums read what I posted and come to their own conclusions as to what I wrote.

----------


## Wildrose

> It's interesting information, but not persuasive.  Ms Gandhi makes the mistake of using anecdotal stories and not so scientific studies to support the theory.
> 
> Viruses replicate faster than the body's immune system can respond.  That's why we get sick.  The body does respond, and in most cases attacks and kills off the invading pathogens.  That's why we get well.
> 
> The theory is that less initial viral load will sufficiently slow the initial growth so that the body's response ramps up as quickly as the virus does, and therefore results in lesser severity.  Sounds good in principle, but I would need more than some cruise ship stories or hamster masks to convince me this is true.  
> 
> It is difficult for me to believe that a mask is going to be that effective at protecting me in most cases.  I do believe that my wearing a mask might protect others.  Maybe not from the virus, but at least I am not spraying them when I talk.  As I have gotten older, I have become more aware of just how much we "shed" normal fluids in normal activities.  Yuck!


The guy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The evidence suggests that if your initial exposure does not result in a sufficiently high viral load to preciptate a strong immune response you may not even develop lasting immunity from that first infection.

There was evidence showing that people who only have asymptomatic cases or cases with only minor symptoms were not developing lasting immunity at least early on.

Generally the severity of symptoms is directly correlated to the viral load.

----------


## Wildrose

> Thank you for your input. 
> 
> I'll let others on these forums read what I posted and come to their own conclusions as to what I wrote.


Punting again probably is your best option at this point.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Punting again probably is your best option at this point.


And by now, you should have learned that continuing to reply to posts to get the last word in, isn't a good option for you.

----------


## squidward

> The guy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
> 
> The evidence suggests that if your initial exposure does not result in a sufficiently high viral load to preciptate a strong immune response you may not even develop lasting immunity from that first infection.
> 
> There was evidence showing that people who only have asymptomatic cases or cases with only minor symptoms were not developing lasting immunity at least early on.
> 
> Generally the severity of symptoms is directly correlated to the viral load.


Quantify the viral load necessary to confer disease and the viral load contacted when one walks through the exhaled vapor cloud surrounding an infected individual.

----------

WhoKnows (11-12-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Quantify the viral load necessary to confer disease and the viral load contacted when one walks through the exhaled vapor cloud surrounding an infected individual.


Excellent questions. 

He can't, because no one can. 

Well done. For real.

----------


## squidward

> Excellent questions. 
> 
> He can't, because no one can. 
> 
> Well done. For real.


But the pharma backed talking points sound so authoritative.......

----------

WhoKnows (11-12-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Quantify the viral load necessary to confer disease and the viral load contacted when one walks through the exhaled vapor cloud surrounding an infected individual.


The viral load has to be high enough for you to be showing symptoms. So far there's little to no evidence suggesting asymptomatic transmission.

Your second question doesn't even make much sense.

How much you're going to be exposed to depends on the circumstances.  So far there's still little to no evidence to suggest it spreads by anything other than prolonged, close, intimate contact with a symptomatic person.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> I'm surprised they haven't said masks help with erectile dysfunction


Only if she is masked.

----------


## squidward

> The viral load has to be high enough for you to be showing symptoms. So far there's little to no evidence suggesting asymptomatic transmission.
> 
> Your second question doesn't even make much sense.
> 
> How much you're going to be exposed to depends on the circumstances.  So far there's still little to no evidence to suggest it spreads by anything other than close, intimate contact with a symptomatic person.


Quantify the viral innoculation load necessary to confer illness.

----------

WhoKnows (11-17-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Quantify the viral innoculation load necessary to confer illness.


That's going to vary tremendously from person to person, instance to instance.

There are hundreds of papers on the subject if you really want to dig down to a specific number.

You do realize don't you to prove a specific range you'd have to get a few thousand healthy volunteers and subject them to higher and higher doses to see when they get enough exposure to become symptomatic.

At the same time you'd have to measure just how many viral particles are in their blood stream periodically up to the point at which they become symptomatic.

Both types of tests would be irresponsible, unethical, and illegal.

----------


## Wildrose

> And by now, you should have learned that continuing to reply to posts to get the last word in, isn't a good option for you.


I've learned you rarely if ever can support any of your claims.

----------


## squidward

> That's going to vary tremendously from person to person, instance to instance.
> 
> There are hundreds of papers on the subject if you really want to dig down to a specific number.
> 
> You do realize don't you to prove a specific range you'd have to get a few thousand healthy volunteers and subject them to higher and higher doses to see when they get enough exposure to become symptomatic.
> 
> At the same time you'd have to measure just how many viral particles are in their blood stream periodically up to the point at which they become symptomatic.
> 
> Both types of tests would be irresponsible, unethical, and illegal.


so stop talking in hypotheticals as if they mean something. 
falling from the 10th floor is not necessarily safer than falling from the 15th.

----------

WhoKnows (11-17-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> I've learned you rarely if ever can support any of your claims.


Which has nothing to do with you being banned from threads or your 30 day suspension.

----------


## WhoKnows

> *That's going to vary tremendously from person to person, instance to instance.*
> 
> There are hundreds of papers on the subject if you really want to dig down to a specific number.
> 
> You do realize don't you to prove a specific range you'd have to get a few thousand healthy volunteers and subject them to higher and higher doses to see when they get enough exposure to become symptomatic.
> 
> At the same time you'd have to measure just how many viral particles are in their blood stream periodically up to the point at which they become symptomatic.
> 
> Both types of tests would be irresponsible, unethical, and illegal.


Bold mine. Potentially, yes. So what's the range?

----------


## Wildrose

> Which has nothing to do with you being banned from threads or your 30 day suspension.


As you've already been informed my ban was a mistake and that mistake was corrected.

You'd be wise to drop it.

----------


## Wildrose

> Bold mine. Potentially, yes. So what's the range?


Obviously until those tests are done or enough info gathered following active cases we don't know.

Some people have better immune systems than others so they will be more resistant, some with weaker immune systems will get infected at lower ranges.

Some people, even those who get very ill with the disease don't seem to be transmitting it because all of their close contacts don't also become ill or even test positive.

----------


## Jen

Masks are not helpful to anyone.

If someone wants to wear one, that's fine with me..................but I don't wear  a mask unless I have no choice.

----------


## Trinnity

@WhoKnows and @Wildrose, stay on topic._ 
Modding and bans isn't the topic._  :Nono: 


 :Tap:

----------


## Wildrose

> @WhoKnows and @Wildrose, stay on topic._ 
> Modding and bans isn't the topic._


I have been, someone else can't.

----------


## WhoKnows

> I have been, someone else can't.


No you haven't. You telling me about how I don't post facts about anything is not staying on topic. It's trying to pick a fight. Don't be a dick.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Obviously until those tests are done or enough info gathered following active cases we don't know.
> 
> Some people have better immune systems than others so they will be more resistant, some with weaker immune systems will get infected at lower ranges.
> 
> Some people, even those who get very ill with the disease don't seem to be transmitting it because all of their close contacts don't also become ill or even test positive.


Which is why anyone (not necessarily you) saying that wearing a masks decreases "viral load" is a bunch of BS. Thanks for agreeing.

----------


## Canadianeye

> A virus is itself just a particle, it is not a living organism because it cannot reproduce and doesn't even metabolize.
> 
> Only once it joins with a host cell does it actually become a living organism by hijacking that cells reproductive system.
> 
> Viruses are the ultimate parasites.
> 
> This is why they can under certain circumstances be incredibly persistent in the environment.
> 
> Just a few years ago samples of the 1917-18 flu virus that devastated the globe were taken from bodies of people who died of it buried in permafrost.
> ...


So the viral particles are those coming out from the sides of the mask, and, those globs that are sneezed/coughed out.

The mask stops the globs, but allows the other virus particles to escape...all of it looking for a cell.

Let's attempt to move past that now, and get back to some of the points for clarity.

The infected persons breath releases the virus, and it eventually lands somewhere, whether they have on a mask or not. It can land in someones eyes. It can land on someones hands. It can land on a persons mask. It can land on clothing. It can be breathed in someones mouth. It can be breathed in by someones nose. It can land on a door handle. It can land on an elevator button.

Viral globs, if masked, will land on the inside of the mask, stopping globs from others at that time.

Now, masks then become the predominantly touched object - and - the mask is the object closest to areas of the most dangerously accessible receiving outlets for the virus. Eyes, nose and mouth, via the hands touching the mask, and, the mask itself touching those areas during adjustments.

Is this pretty much correct?

----------


## Wildrose

> So the viral particles are those coming out from the sides of the mask, and, those globs that are sneezed/coughed out.
> 
> The mask stops the globs, but allows the other virus particles to escape...all of it looking for a cell.
> 
> Let's attempt to move past that now, and get back to some of the points for clarity.
> 
> The infected persons breath releases the virus, and it eventually lands somewhere, whether they have on a mask or not. It can land in someones eyes. It can land on someones hands. It can land on a persons mask. It can land on clothing. It can be breathed in someones mouth. It can be breathed in by someones nose. It can land on a door handle. It can land on an elevator button.
> 
> Viral globs, if masked, will land on the inside of the mask, stopping globs from others at that time.
> ...


No, the viral particles are so small and they are contained in microscopic particles of water.  Paper masks really do nothing to contain them, the effluent simply goes out to the sides.

A very loose cloth mask will catch a lot of the water particles but energy seeks the path of least resistance so a good portion escapes around the edges as well.

Influenza on the other hand does not require water droplets to spread which is why it is an airborne virus vs aerosol like covid.

Bottom line, a mask alone does you little good unless you have both a mask and eye protection because your eyes are a direct pathway into the sinuses.

What disturbs me is I suspect we'll soon be finding out that it's also being transmitted by mosquitos as that would be the easiest explanation for why wild animals are testing positive for covid antibodies.

There is some evidence that it's possible to transmit the virus due to touching a dirty mask but I have yet to see any confirmation that it's being spread by any sort of contact exposure.

I think though that some research seriously needs to be done to see if mosquitos are spreading it.  Where we have evidence of wild animals having the virus are places with large mosquito populations.  Even in Zoos the animals are well protected from human contact so with zoo animals coming up positive for the virus there isn't a lot of ways the known aerosol transmission could be infecting them.

----------


## Wildrose

> Which is why anyone (not necessarily you) saying that wearing a masks decreases "viral load" is a bunch of BS. Thanks for agreeing.


I've never said wearing a mask reduces viral loads.

----------


## WhoKnows

> I've never said wearing a mask reduces viral loads.


You have a reading comprehension problem. I specifically excluded you in my statement.

----------


## Wildrose

> You have a reading comprehension problem. I specifically excluded you in my statement.


No you didn't.




> Which is why anyone (not necessarily you) saying that wearing a masks decreases "viral load" is a bunch of BS. Thanks for agreeing.


"Not necessarily you" is not exclusionary, it leaves room for inclusion in either group.

----------


## WhoKnows

> No you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> "Not necessarily you" is not exclusionary, it leaves room for inclusion in either group.


Good Lord you like to argue about nothing.

----------

Brat (11-18-2021),Rutabaga (11-18-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Good Lord you like to argue about nothing.


You started the argument, check your mirror.

----------


## WhoKnows

> You started the argument, check your mirror.


Here we go again...

----------


## Canadianeye

> No, the viral particles are so small and they are contained in microscopic particles of water.  Paper masks really do nothing to contain them, the effluent simply goes out to the sides.
> 
> A very loose cloth mask will catch a lot of the water particles but energy seeks the path of least resistance so a good portion escapes around the edges as well.
> 
> Influenza on the other hand does not require water droplets to spread which is why it is an airborne virus vs aerosol like covid.
> 
> Bottom line, a mask alone does you little good unless you have both a mask and eye protection because your eyes are a direct pathway into the sinuses.
> 
> What disturbs me is I suspect we'll soon be finding out that it's also being transmitted by mosquitos as that would be the easiest explanation for why wild animals are testing positive for covid antibodies.
> ...


Well, we can get to wild animals and mosquitos in a bit, because that is interesting as well.

So, masks do little unless with eye protection. That statement doesn't address my points about the mask being in of itself...more dangerous for adjustments and transference.

I think we could arrive at a joint statement of masks do almost nothing to protect, and are the predominant item touched by a persons hands, and are also the closest in proximity to all pathways that give entrance to the virus...making them mostly useless and increase infection possibilities, and, are better if accompanied by eye protection by limiting at least one pathway (without incorporating protective eye gear hand adjustments etc).

Are we getting close?

----------


## Wildrose

> Well, we can get to wild animals and mosquitos in a bit, because that is interesting as well.
> 
> So, masks do little unless with eye protection. That statement doesn't address my points about the mask being in of itself...more dangerous for adjustments and transference.


They could be, everything from hammers to firearms can be dangerous when mishandled.




> I think we could arrive at a joint statement of masks do almost nothing to protect, and are the predominant item touched by a persons hands, and are also the closest in proximity to all pathways that give entrance to the virus...making them mostly useless and increase infection possibilities, and, are better if accompanied by eye protection by limiting at least one pathway (without incorporating protective eye gear hand adjustments etc).
> 
> I wouldn't say "mostly useless" as they will prevent your ejecta from flying out directly at anyone you're talking to and the soft, loose, cloth masks seem to be about the most effective of all other than the N95 type masks.
> 
> Remember in Medicine the rule is "we wear masks to protect the patients, not ourselves".
> 
> None of those things would even be an issue if we'd addressed this pandemic properly from the first but the dem's prevented that because they wanted to use it as a political wedge issue and a bludgeon to beat Trump and the republicans into oblivion.
> 
> If mosquito borne transmission is possible we have an explanation for why the pandemic has continued on long after it should have ended.
> ...

----------


## Canadianeye

> They could be, everything from hammers to firearms can be dangerous when mishandled.


Well, yeah. But adults cannot even do adjustments properly/adequately (not even getting into factors beyond adults control, like mask slipping, grabbing for it, wind blows it up into your face/eyes etc)...but they have been putting these things on little children, who haven't an ounce of disciplined control.

So we are not really that close. You kind of want to defend the mask, while saying the mask is useless - and obfuscate the facts about the mask being harmful given its proximity to the pathways etc.

We obviously could be quite a while reaching a joint statement...so why don't you talk about mosquitos and transmission.

----------


## Trinnity

> @WhoKnows and @Wildrose, stay on topic._  Modding and bans isn't the topic._





> No you didn't. "Not necessarily you" is not exclusionary, it leaves room for inclusion in either group.





> Good Lord you like to argue about nothing.





> You started the argument, check your mirror.





> I have been, someone else can't.





> No you haven't. You telling me about how I don't post facts about anything is not staying on topic. It's trying to pick a fight. Don't be a dick.





> Here we go again...


I warned you both.  

  FAIR WARNING Wildrose and WhoKnows are thread banned. Do not respond to their posts.

----------

