(Don't) Wear a Mask Debate

[sateeb]

Now I know which websites these chin diaper face mask wearing halfwits are reading

[nil]

That article has been thoroughly examined. Another conclusion is 'Seeing is not necessarily believing'.

At first glance, the cited article looks to be quite legitimate. It is listed in PubMed Central, a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). This is a U.S. government website (as evidenced by the “.gov” in the URL). It was published in the medical journal Medical Hypotheses, which on the surface seems quite reasonable. The author lists his affiliation as Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, which is seemingly a reputable organization that lends credibility to the article. It looks very much like other science journal articles you may have seen—there is an Abstract, an Introduction, mentions of the World Health Organization and other reputable scientific organizations, and a table that lists the potential health consequences of mask-wearing. Delving more deeply, you might notice that the article is littered with footnotes, listing 67 references!

This may include both incorrect and unsubstantiated claims. In this example, you can find both, including:

An assertion that the case fatality rate of COVID-19 is considerably less than 1%, which is backed up with a citation from March 26, 2020 (VERY early in the pandemic). While the true case fatality rate of COVID-19 is not definitely established, as of March 1, 2021, the lowest case fatality rate in the world (New Zealand) is 1.1% (ourworldindata.org).

An indirect suggestion that wearing a mask can cause hypoxemia (oxygen deficit) without citing any studies that show mask-induced hypoxemia. Through a series of alarming pieces of information about the dangers of hypoxemia, it creates an air of urgency that seeks to frighten the reader about mask-wearing (“It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 [hypoxemia] and increased levels of CO2 [hypercapnia] even for a few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality.”) While the references that point out the dangers of hypoxia are valid, there are no references that provide evidence connecting mask-wearing to hypoxia.

The sources cited are not quoted nor are page number references provided. Reputable scientific papers cite sources and include page numbers for the citation and often provide directly-quoted material.

Incorrect spelling (“...400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality [sic] risk among people”) and grammar issues (“As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing [sic] hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis…”). While this can be a result of an author whose primary language is not English, most journals have editorial staff that ensure correct spelling and grammar before publication.

https://www.amgenbiotechexperience.com/ ... -believing

Amgen Biotech Experience is a scientific education program. It's been around for around 30 years.
This particular 'lesson' is teaching students how to identify the facts and fiction in seemingly valid reports.

Is that all they could come up with. Still waiting for the study’s that show masks are effective.

Updated March 2021 with “ So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.”

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

[Lost]

That article has been thoroughly examined. Another conclusion is 'Seeing is not necessarily believing'.

At first glance, the cited article looks to be quite legitimate. It is listed in PubMed Central, a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). This is a U.S. government website (as evidenced by the “.gov” in the URL). It was published in the medical journal Medical Hypotheses, which on the surface seems quite reasonable. The author lists his affiliation as Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, which is seemingly a reputable organization that lends credibility to the article. It looks very much like other science journal articles you may have seen—there is an Abstract, an Introduction, mentions of the World Health Organization and other reputable scientific organizations, and a table that lists the potential health consequences of mask-wearing. Delving more deeply, you might notice that the article is littered with footnotes, listing 67 references!

This may include both incorrect and unsubstantiated claims. In this example, you can find both, including:

An assertion that the case fatality rate of COVID-19 is considerably less than 1%, which is backed up with a citation from March 26, 2020 (VERY early in the pandemic). While the true case fatality rate of COVID-19 is not definitely established, as of March 1, 2021, the lowest case fatality rate in the world (New Zealand) is 1.1% (ourworldindata.org).

An indirect suggestion that wearing a mask can cause hypoxemia (oxygen deficit) without citing any studies that show mask-induced hypoxemia. Through a series of alarming pieces of information about the dangers of hypoxemia, it creates an air of urgency that seeks to frighten the reader about mask-wearing (“It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 [hypoxemia] and increased levels of CO2 [hypercapnia] even for a few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality.”) While the references that point out the dangers of hypoxia are valid, there are no references that provide evidence connecting mask-wearing to hypoxia.

The sources cited are not quoted nor are page number references provided. Reputable scientific papers cite sources and include page numbers for the citation and often provide directly-quoted material.

Incorrect spelling (“...400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality [sic] risk among people”) and grammar issues (“As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing [sic] hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis…”). While this can be a result of an author whose primary language is not English, most journals have editorial staff that ensure correct spelling and grammar before publication.

https://www.amgenbiotechexperience.com/ ... -believing

Amgen Biotech Experience is a scientific education program. It's been around for around 30 years.
This particular 'lesson' is teaching students how to identify the facts and fiction in seemingly valid reports.

Is that all they could come up with. Still waiting for the study’s that show masks are effective.

Updated March 2021 with “ So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.”

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

So are you saying cloth masks or medical masks are ineffective? Or both?

[sateeb]

That article has been thoroughly examined. Another conclusion is 'Seeing is not necessarily believing'.

At first glance, the cited article looks to be quite legitimate. It is listed in PubMed Central, a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). This is a U.S. government website (as evidenced by the “.gov” in the URL). It was published in the medical journal Medical Hypotheses, which on the surface seems quite reasonable. The author lists his affiliation as Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, which is seemingly a reputable organization that lends credibility to the article. It looks very much like other science journal articles you may have seen—there is an Abstract, an Introduction, mentions of the World Health Organization and other reputable scientific organizations, and a table that lists the potential health consequences of mask-wearing. Delving more deeply, you might notice that the article is littered with footnotes, listing 67 references!

This may include both incorrect and unsubstantiated claims. In this example, you can find both, including:

An assertion that the case fatality rate of COVID-19 is considerably less than 1%, which is backed up with a citation from March 26, 2020 (VERY early in the pandemic). While the true case fatality rate of COVID-19 is not definitely established, as of March 1, 2021, the lowest case fatality rate in the world (New Zealand) is 1.1% (ourworldindata.org).

An indirect suggestion that wearing a mask can cause hypoxemia (oxygen deficit) without citing any studies that show mask-induced hypoxemia. Through a series of alarming pieces of information about the dangers of hypoxemia, it creates an air of urgency that seeks to frighten the reader about mask-wearing (“It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 [hypoxemia] and increased levels of CO2 [hypercapnia] even for a few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality.”) While the references that point out the dangers of hypoxia are valid, there are no references that provide evidence connecting mask-wearing to hypoxia.

The sources cited are not quoted nor are page number references provided. Reputable scientific papers cite sources and include page numbers for the citation and often provide directly-quoted material.

Incorrect spelling (“...400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality [sic] risk among people”) and grammar issues (“As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing [sic] hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis…”). While this can be a result of an author whose primary language is not English, most journals have editorial staff that ensure correct spelling and grammar before publication.

https://www.amgenbiotechexperience.com/ ... -believing

Amgen Biotech Experience is a scientific education program. It's been around for around 30 years.
This particular 'lesson' is teaching students how to identify the facts and fiction in seemingly valid reports.

Is that all they could come up with. Still waiting for the study’s that show masks are effective.

Updated March 2021 with “ So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.”

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Swiss Policy Research (SPR; before mid-May 2020, Swiss Propaganda Research)[1][2] is a website launched in 2016, which describes itself as "an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media". While the editors of the site are unknown, they claim that "SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding".[3] The site has been criticised for spreading conspiracy theories, especially relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.[2][4] Christoph Neuberger, a professor at the Free University of Berlin, stated that while the SPR website attempts to present its message as objective and neutral, it is clearly political, and its content is pseudoscientific ("pseudowissenschaftlich").[2] The site has also been categorized as a propaganda tool.[5] In 2021, Swiss Policy Research suggested that QAnon was a psyop of the FBI.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research

Oh, and the Dr Theodore Noel shown in the video blowing vape smoke through a mask should really show him blowing smoke out of his arse

Doctor with expired license falsely claims masks don’t work

https://factcheck.afp.com/doctor-expire ... -dont-work

A little bit of background checking goes a long way to avoid being confused as a gullible conspiracy theorist

[HHTel]

From Nil:

Is that all they could come up with. Still waiting for the study’s that show masks are effective.

They? It's quoted from scientific educational site.

Amgen Biotech Experience is a scientific education program. It's been around for around 30 years.
This particular 'lesson' is teaching students how to identify the facts and fiction in seemingly valid reports.

Read the damn thing before commenting. It's not about producing evidence for wearing a mask. There's more than enough of that.

[nil]

It's not about producing evidence for wearing a mask. There's more than enough of that.

There’s plenty of evidence for not wearing masks but I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence supporting them. And after over a year of data.

[nil]

That article has been thoroughly examined. Another conclusion is 'Seeing is not necessarily believing'.





https://www.amgenbiotechexperience.com/ ... -believing

Amgen Biotech Experience is a scientific education program. It's been around for around 30 years.
This particular 'lesson' is teaching students how to identify the facts and fiction in seemingly valid reports.

Is that all they could come up with. Still waiting for the study’s that show masks are effective.

Updated March 2021 with “ So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.”

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Swiss Policy Research (SPR; before mid-May 2020, Swiss Propaganda Research)[1][2] is a website launched in 2016, which describes itself as "an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media". While the editors of the site are unknown, they claim that "SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding".[3] The site has been criticised for spreading conspiracy theories, especially relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.[2][4] Christoph Neuberger, a professor at the Free University of Berlin, stated that while the SPR website attempts to present its message as objective and neutral, it is clearly political, and its content is pseudoscientific ("pseudowissenschaftlich").[2] The site has also been categorized as a propaganda tool.[5] In 2021, Swiss Policy Research suggested that QAnon was a psyop of the FBI.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research

Oh, and the Dr Theodore Noel shown in the video blowing vape smoke through a mask should really show him blowing smoke out of his arse

Doctor with expired license falsely claims masks don’t work

https://factcheck.afp.com/doctor-expire ... -dont-work

A little bit of background checking goes a long way to avoid being confused as a gullible conspiracy theorist

Have you even looked at their website. Their facts from what I can see are in the most part referenced to mainstream news and medical sources.
Of course, anything that goes against the groupthink will get attacked.

[HHTel]

I give up. Some people are unteachable

[sateeb]

This thread now has it's Homer

[thecolonel]

I've not seen the wording of the mask wearing law, but I have a question

Do families have to wear a mask when at home?

And if not, why not?

Does the virus know you're at home, leaves you alone and goes down to the bar or shopping mall(ie a public place) ?

It's been reported especially today that many cases are spread within families so I'm curious as to why masks aren't mandatory in the household? And people encouraged to spend time in different rooms wherever possible etc

As per the car rule, living alone is ok. Not alone, wear a mask.

As I say, not seen the wording






Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

[Lost]

The moment masks become mandatory in households is the moment utter ridiculousness has crept into the conversation.

[thecolonel]

The moment masks become mandatory in households is the moment utter ridiculousness has crept into the conversation.

But that's precisely where the virus spreads..... the home.

So why *ONLY* fine people for not wearing masks 'outside'. It's 'inside' that's the problem. And that is the home more than anywhere else by far.

I understand your sentiment, but it's not ridiculous at all.

On the contrary, what's ridiculous is completely ignoring the fact that it is mostly spread at home where people are far more in contact with each other.

Yes I completely get why bars are closed because some of them get very crowded and people get too close( usually to make themselves heard over loud music).

But walking around outside in the open fresh air, on a beach for example, versus being in a confined space with other family members coughing and sneezing all day and night, all touching the same things in the home ..... do me a favour.

Be honest, putting your family needs to one side, where would you truly feel safer?

To be clear, what I'm mainly suggesting is that people shouldn't be fined per se for not wearing a mask simply because they are 'outside of the home' as they could be in a far, FAR safer place than their own home!

But if they are in a high risk area(a small space with other people) then fair enough, fine them.

And, that people should be *encouraged* to wear masks and 'social distance' at home(or visiting) as much as is practically possible. As opposed to being to fined for not doing so.

If you go to say a hospital waiting area you have to social distance, wear a mask and wash your hands or apply gel. Where's the logic that says all that protocol can go out of the window if you're in your home?

Or does the friendly kind virus know not to spread to other family members?!

To just ignore the 'home' completely and focus only on outside the home, wherever that may be, is ridiculous indeed.

Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

[Hahuahin]

The moment masks become mandatory in households is the moment utter ridiculousness has crept into the conversation.

But that's precisely where the virus spreads..... the home.

So why *ONLY* fine people for not wearing masks 'outside'. It's 'inside' that's the problem. And that is the home more than anywhere else by far.

I understand your sentiment, but it's not ridiculous at all.

On the contrary, what's ridiculous is completely ignoring the fact that it is mostly spread at home where people are far more in contact with each other.

Yes I completely get why bars are closed because some of them get very crowded and people get too close( usually to make themselves heard over loud music).

But walking around outside in the open fresh air, on a beach for example, versus being in a confined space with other family members coughing and sneezing all day and night, all touching the same things in the home ..... do me a favour.

Be honest, putting your family needs to one side, where would you truly feel safer?

To be clear, what I'm mainly suggesting is that people shouldn't be fined per se for not wearing a mask simply because they are 'outside of the home' as they could be in a far, FAR safer place than their own home!

But if they are in a high risk area(a small space with other people) then fair enough, fine them.

And, that people should be *encouraged* to wear masks and 'social distance' at home(or visiting) as much as is practically possible. As opposed to being to fined for not doing so.

If you go to say a hospital waiting area you have to social distance, wear a mask and wash your hands or apply gel. Where's the logic that says all that protocol can go out of the window if you're in your home?

Or does the friendly kind virus know not to spread to other family members?!

To just ignore the 'home' completely and focus only on outside the home, wherever that may be, is ridiculous indeed.

Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

I agree and as far as I know some European countries have under "covid 19 waves" practiced regulations according to what is necessary to stop the infection rate to increase by banning a limit for family members who may be in the same house / building together and of course distancing inside / outside, and many people / families have actually been fined for breaking these rules. How the police find out ... I do not know, but I think it is the "neighborhood jungle phone" that is spying on them.
hahuahin

[HHTel]

Colonel, have you not kept up with the 'bubble' idea which has worked so well elsewhere.

We don't wear a mask at home. My whole family is in a 'bubble'. No-one visits and we visit no-one outside of our bubble. It has worked extremely well in other countries. You can operate a bubble without being told by the government (which would be a good idea)

A bubble is a group of people with whom you have close physical contact.

Bubbles must be "exclusive". Once in one, you can't start another with a different household. If you decide to change your bubble, you should treat your previous bubble as a separate household for 10 days before forming a new one.

People in a bubble can stay overnight in each other's homes, visit outdoors places together and do not have to socially distance.

[thecolonel]

Colonel, have you not kept up with the 'bubble' idea which has worked so well elsewhere.

We don't wear a mask at home. My whole family is in a 'bubble'. No-one visits and we visit no-one outside of our bubble. It has worked extremely well in other countries. You can operate a bubble without being told by the government (which would be a good idea)

A bubble is a group of people with whom you have close physical contact.

Bubbles must be "exclusive". Once in one, you can't start another with a different household. If you decide to change your bubble, you should treat your previous bubble as a separate household for 10 days before forming a new one.

People in a bubble can stay overnight in each other's homes, visit outdoors places together and do not have to socially distance.

Noted.

But I gather its not the rule here and that's my point.

That's where the virus is spreading not some bloke walking on a beach 100 yards from anyone without a mask on.

All depends whether they really want to stop the virus or not?

The reality is, as we all know on here, they like to make laws but very rarely enforce them.

Making rules makes them feel like they are winning the battle.


Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk