RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
Then you’re among the anomalous who need extra precaution.
But non-asthma-sufferers should not have to lockdown because you do. That’s the rub.
70% of those infected with Kung Flu wore masks, followed CDC guidelines.
- Thread starter Nostra
- Start date
But non-asthma-sufferers should not have to lockdown because you do. That’s the rub.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 91,391
- 83,117
- 3,615
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #182
I
I don't give a shit what you taught, Elmer.
Bring something proving the study I linked is wrong, or STFU.
Apparently you don't have a clue how studies are conducted.You talk a lot about "what I've heard"..........this study and that study....and yet you bring zero to back any of it up.their study trial group only had 11 people in it, that did not ever wear a mask...and 303 people in the study group that did.... a more informed study would be half of the study group as mask wears, and half the study group of maskless deniers.Facebook fact checker?
314 infected people surveyed.....70% of them wore masks.
Facebook “Factchecker”: They over sampled mask wearers.
from what I've heard, non mask wearers are TWO TIMES likely to catch the corona virus than mask wearers.
btw, your article says the mask wears, wore their masks in public, except when eating out... these studies show that most mask wearers that catch covid, ate out in a restaurant, where they took their mask off.
The study in the OP is pretty straightforward, so you are having to lie to try to spin it. 314 infected people were studied, 70% were mask wearers and followers of CDC guidlines.
End of story. You can't lie your way to changing those facts.
As I said earlier, 314 infected people out of how many millions of cases?
How many people are polled out of tens of millions of voters to get a fairly accurate reading of political races?
Listen asshole, I taught statistics. You have no ******* clue what statistical significance is!
I don't give a shit what you taught, Elmer.
Bring something proving the study I linked is wrong, or STFU.
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,564
- 45,974
- 2,615
You were good right up until that last stupid statement
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #184
Don't be a ******* retard. If I don't wear the damn thing I can not conduct my business. I can not shop for food. I can not go into ANY business establishment.You don't wear masks, use hand sanitizer, or social distance for the common cold...or...the flu, which has a higher mortality rate than covid. Quit supporting the Chinese mask industry that even says that it DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST COVID-19 right on the box for those who bother to read.Who the **** is talking about wearing masks at home or in your car???RidiculousTell me again how we have to wear masks......
Face masks not 100% effective at preventing spread of COVID-19 - CDC | The Jerusalem Post
It is impossible to evaluate exactly where someone contracted the virus.www.jpost.com
Masks are not a panacea but you do have to follow certain procedures
Most people I see using them have their noses hanging out or they touch the outside of the mask then rub their eyes or touch their faces.
So don't touch the mask then touch your face. when you take the mask off you have to thoroughly wash your hands before you touch your face.
It ain't rocket science
When required to wear the mask EVERYWHERE AND ALLDAY it is a literal impossibility to never touch the mask or to wash your hands every time you do.
Rejoin us in reality.
Of course you are wrong.
And no one is required to wear a mask everywhere all day long. You don't have to wear a mask in your car or your home or even outside if you can distance
Use some common sense for ***** sake. Masks are REQUIRED in ANY public space per the Missouri Health Department. If you work in one of those places you wear a mask ALL DAY LONG.
Ridiculous that this stupid shit has to be spelled out for anyone.
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,564
- 45,974
- 2,615
Wrong (or most likely lying) The CDC very specifically stated that as of mid October there had been 300,000 excess deaths...200,000 of them attributed to covid
Yes because anti-maskers don't follow those guidelines
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #186
Sooooo many pretend warriors on this board. NO MASK PERIOD nonsense.
I get it, you're a bunch of old ***** who seldom leave your house so it's no big deal to you. Meanwhile the rest of WORKING AMERICA have to suffer through these asinine rules because we have lives. Or perhaps you live where they aren't required.
Either way give it a rest. Your cyber warrior armor won't put food on my table or pay my bills
I get it, you're a bunch of old ***** who seldom leave your house so it's no big deal to you. Meanwhile the rest of WORKING AMERICA have to suffer through these asinine rules because we have lives. Or perhaps you live where they aren't required.
Either way give it a rest. Your cyber warrior armor won't put food on my table or pay my bills
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
I
Apparently you don't have a clue how studies are conducted.You talk a lot about "what I've heard"..........this study and that study....and yet you bring zero to back any of it up.their study trial group only had 11 people in it, that did not ever wear a mask...and 303 people in the study group that did.... a more informed study would be half of the study group as mask wears, and half the study group of maskless deniers.Facebook fact checker?
314 infected people surveyed.....70% of them wore masks.
Facebook “Factchecker”: They over sampled mask wearers.
from what I've heard, non mask wearers are TWO TIMES likely to catch the corona virus than mask wearers.
btw, your article says the mask wears, wore their masks in public, except when eating out... these studies show that most mask wearers that catch covid, ate out in a restaurant, where they took their mask off.
The study in the OP is pretty straightforward, so you are having to lie to try to spin it. 314 infected people were studied, 70% were mask wearers and followers of CDC guidlines.
End of story. You can't lie your way to changing those facts.
As I said earlier, 314 infected people out of how many millions of cases?
How many people are polled out of tens of millions of voters to get a fairly accurate reading of political races?
Listen asshole, I taught statistics. You have no ******* clue what statistical significance is!
I don't give a shit what you taught, Elmer.
Bring something proving the study I linked is wrong, or STFU.
Your study is ******* insignificant, dickhead! It was very early on in the pandemic and has been overcome by events. The CDC says that over 70% of COVID cases come from being infected by their spouse. Do you think they are wearing masks around each other? **** no!
EL Rich
Gold Member
- Sep 23, 2018
- 423
- 141
- 180
Did you read the article you pasted or just the headline? In the body of the article the author explicitly says wearing masks, though are clearly not anywhere near 100% effective at stopping COVID, are still the most effective means available to slow the spread. So do you have to wear a mask? Of course not. If you do not want to wear a mask you are not a criminal, but there is a pretty good possibility you are an asshole.Tell me again how we have to wear masks......
Face masks not 100% effective at preventing spread of COVID-19 - CDC | The Jerusalem Post
It is impossible to evaluate exactly where someone contracted the virus.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 91,391
- 83,117
- 3,615
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #190
You are a good Sheeple.I
Apparently you don't have a clue how studies are conducted.You talk a lot about "what I've heard"..........this study and that study....and yet you bring zero to back any of it up.their study trial group only had 11 people in it, that did not ever wear a mask...and 303 people in the study group that did.... a more informed study would be half of the study group as mask wears, and half the study group of maskless deniers.Facebook fact checker?
314 infected people surveyed.....70% of them wore masks.
Facebook “Factchecker”: They over sampled mask wearers.
from what I've heard, non mask wearers are TWO TIMES likely to catch the corona virus than mask wearers.
btw, your article says the mask wears, wore their masks in public, except when eating out... these studies show that most mask wearers that catch covid, ate out in a restaurant, where they took their mask off.
The study in the OP is pretty straightforward, so you are having to lie to try to spin it. 314 infected people were studied, 70% were mask wearers and followers of CDC guidlines.
End of story. You can't lie your way to changing those facts.
As I said earlier, 314 infected people out of how many millions of cases?
How many people are polled out of tens of millions of voters to get a fairly accurate reading of political races?
Listen asshole, I taught statistics. You have no ******* clue what statistical significance is!
I don't give a shit what you taught, Elmer.
Bring something proving the study I linked is wrong, or STFU.
Your study is ******* insignificant, dickhead! It was very early on in the pandemic and has been overcome by events. The CDC says that over 70% of COVID cases come from being infected by their spouse. Do you think they are wearing masks around each other? **** no!
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
I don't hang out with people who don't wear masks! That's why I have not died of COVID yet much less had a cold or the flu. When I see someone like that, I spin on my heels and evacuate the area.
You really are stretching now to defend your beliefs which have been proved to be a lie, Suck it up, dickhead! You are wrong!
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
You are a good Sheeple.I
Apparently you don't have a clue how studies are conducted.You talk a lot about "what I've heard"..........this study and that study....and yet you bring zero to back any of it up.their study trial group only had 11 people in it, that did not ever wear a mask...and 303 people in the study group that did.... a more informed study would be half of the study group as mask wears, and half the study group of maskless deniers.Facebook fact checker?
314 infected people surveyed.....70% of them wore masks.
Facebook “Factchecker”: They over sampled mask wearers.
from what I've heard, non mask wearers are TWO TIMES likely to catch the corona virus than mask wearers.
btw, your article says the mask wears, wore their masks in public, except when eating out... these studies show that most mask wearers that catch covid, ate out in a restaurant, where they took their mask off.
The study in the OP is pretty straightforward, so you are having to lie to try to spin it. 314 infected people were studied, 70% were mask wearers and followers of CDC guidlines.
End of story. You can't lie your way to changing those facts.
As I said earlier, 314 infected people out of how many millions of cases?
How many people are polled out of tens of millions of voters to get a fairly accurate reading of political races?
Listen asshole, I taught statistics. You have no ******* clue what statistical significance is!
I don't give a shit what you taught, Elmer.
Bring something proving the study I linked is wrong, or STFU.
Your study is ******* insignificant, dickhead! It was very early on in the pandemic and has been overcome by events. The CDC says that over 70% of COVID cases come from being infected by their spouse. Do you think they are wearing masks around each other? **** no!
Know you apparently have offspring that are sheeple for your habit of copulating with farm animals. The only reason you do is that they are smarter than you!
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,564
- 45,974
- 2,615
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 91,391
- 83,117
- 3,615
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #195
You are on tilt!You are a good Sheeple.I
Apparently you don't have a clue how studies are conducted.You talk a lot about "what I've heard"..........this study and that study....and yet you bring zero to back any of it up.their study trial group only had 11 people in it, that did not ever wear a mask...and 303 people in the study group that did.... a more informed study would be half of the study group as mask wears, and half the study group of maskless deniers.Facebook fact checker?
314 infected people surveyed.....70% of them wore masks.
Facebook “Factchecker”: They over sampled mask wearers.
from what I've heard, non mask wearers are TWO TIMES likely to catch the corona virus than mask wearers.
btw, your article says the mask wears, wore their masks in public, except when eating out... these studies show that most mask wearers that catch covid, ate out in a restaurant, where they took their mask off.
The study in the OP is pretty straightforward, so you are having to lie to try to spin it. 314 infected people were studied, 70% were mask wearers and followers of CDC guidlines.
End of story. You can't lie your way to changing those facts.
As I said earlier, 314 infected people out of how many millions of cases?
How many people are polled out of tens of millions of voters to get a fairly accurate reading of political races?
Listen asshole, I taught statistics. You have no ******* clue what statistical significance is!
I don't give a shit what you taught, Elmer.
Bring something proving the study I linked is wrong, or STFU.
Your study is ******* insignificant, dickhead! It was very early on in the pandemic and has been overcome by events. The CDC says that over 70% of COVID cases come from being infected by their spouse. Do you think they are wearing masks around each other? **** no!
Know you apparently have offspring that are sheeple for your habit of copulating with farm animals. The only reason you do is that they are smarter than you!
EL Rich
Gold Member
- Sep 23, 2018
- 423
- 141
- 180
When you make George Lincoln (Rockwell) look like the voice of reason, it may be time to check yourself.
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #197
EL Rich
Gold Member
- Sep 23, 2018
- 423
- 141
- 180
Fair enough, but that overreach had as much to do with folks reactions than the fact they didn’t wear masks. The woman who got tazed was asked to put on a mask or leave, she refused to do either and resisted the officer when being led away. In all fairness, if she were a black man people would say,”what do you expect an officer to do when they are being assaulted?” So really, again, not criminals just assholes.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
They took their masks off to eat indoors at restaurants. You'd know that if you read the actual report. Posts misrepresent CDC study examining mask use
The September report, which examines the behavior of coronavirus patients before their diagnosis, revealed that those who tested positive were twice as likely to have dined at a restaurant. Rather than share key findings from the study, posts online incorrectly suggested that wearing masks makes you more likely to contract the coronavirus and that not wearing one would keep you from catching it.
DGS49
Diamond Member
The MAIN thrust of the "Wear a Mask" campaign has always been that it can't protect YOU, but it is somewhat effective at preventing you from infecting SOMEONE ELSE.
Now, for what I suspect are P.R. reasons, they say, "Well...wearing a mask can reduce your chances of being infected," which to me means, it is nearly worthless to protect you, because of the physical size of the bad guys, which can sashay through a cotton mask like water through your fingers.
So again, wearing a mask can't do much to protect you, and if you wear a mask around other people who are NOT WEARING MASKS, you are not significantly protected. Hence, the title of this thread is not surprising in the least.
Now, for what I suspect are P.R. reasons, they say, "Well...wearing a mask can reduce your chances of being infected," which to me means, it is nearly worthless to protect you, because of the physical size of the bad guys, which can sashay through a cotton mask like water through your fingers.
So again, wearing a mask can't do much to protect you, and if you wear a mask around other people who are NOT WEARING MASKS, you are not significantly protected. Hence, the title of this thread is not surprising in the least.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Member of Parliament Mr. Dan Muys, I voted for him in the last election.- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
NYC Tax on Second Homes Targets 13,000 Properties, Hochul Says- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 9
