Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    16 Oct '20 12:24
    @ponderable said
    The Netherlands goverment probbaly, it took me less than a minute to come up with this link:

    https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/tackling-new-coronavirus-in-the-netherlands/basic-rules-for-everyone

    Please consider to learn to use technology and come to the understanding of a junior highschool attendee before trying to discuss science.
    You are a shmuck.

    That link says nothing about those basic rules being mandatory.

    Please consider to learn to read and come to the understanding of a junior high school attendee before trying to discuss science.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    16 Oct '20 12:271 edit
    @humy said
    your false assertion was "there is no evidence wearing face masks is effective." (your EXACT quote). You said nothing there about whether the face masks are medical-grade or just cloth. So I only have to show evidence of either one being effective and that proves your assertion false.
    + some of the other links mention evidence for cloth masks being effective thus showing evide ...[text shortened]... is to educate them to wear them properly, not to tell them to stop wearing them. You make no point.
    Nope. None of those studies tested a mask actually worn by a person. That is NOT representative of how masks filter when on a person's face. They leak!

    Your study puts a mask on a machine so they cannot leak like they do when a person wears it. Faulty study!

    If you had read the link I posted you would know better. Here is an excerpt.

    " All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.

    For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask."
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    16 Oct '20 13:083 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Nope. None of those studies tested a mask actually worn by a person.
    Firstly that is false. Some studies are directly for when a person or people wear a mask/masks so pointing to some studies that aren't proves nothing.
    Secondly, even the studies that are not aren't invalid just because of this as any non-moron can deduce if masks stop many droplets blowing through them without a person wearing them then they can stop many droplets blowing through them with a person wearing them else what mysterious force would make the physics significantly different between the two in that respect? ; So Even that would be good evidence. You make no point. I have shown you the good evidence that masks are effective and you have given no evidence that that good evidence is invalid.
    They leak!
    If what you mean by that is that masks don't filter out ALL droplets then that's correct and nobody here including I has ever denied that fact and I said myself that they aren't "fool-proof"; and that's also all irrelevant. This is because they don't need to filter out ALL of the droplets to significantly slow down the spread, just a significant proportion needs to be filtered out to significantly slow down the spread and that has been confirmed by the science. Again, you make no point; just BS straw man; that's the best you got.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    16 Oct '20 22:54
    @humy said
    Firstly that is false. Some studies are directly for when a person or people wear a mask/masks so pointing to some studies that aren't proves nothing.
    Secondly, even the studies that are not aren't invalid just because of this as any non-moron can deduce if masks stop many droplets blowing through them without a person wearing them then they can stop many droplets blowing throu ...[text shortened]... been confirmed by the science. Again, you make no point; just BS straw man; that's the best you got.
    Some studies but not the one you posted.

    The Netherlands has a lower death rate from C19 than your country and the UK made mask wearing mandatory. There is no evidence mandatory wearing of masks is effective. If the numbers indicate anything it indicates that wearing masks makes it worse.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    17 Oct '20 06:34
    @metal-brain said
    Some studies but not the one you posted.
    So now you deny I posted more than one.
    OK, I post them yet again and you please tell us how this is NOT more than one;

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
    Face masks: what the data say
    The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic,
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
    Evidence for Effectiveness of Masks
    ...emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows masks reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth.
    https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-simple-and-im-one-of-100-experts-urging-governors-to-require-public-mask-wearing-138507
    The evidence
    ...There are numerous studies that suggest if 80% of people wear a mask in public, then COVID-19 transmission could be halted.
    ...laboratory and epidemiological evidence...
    https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/public-health/how-effective-are-face-masks-at-slowing-spread-of-coronavirus/
    By far, the strongest evidence for mask-wearing can be found in real-world data or so-called epidemiologic data. Leffler and colleagues analysed data on demographics, testing, lockdowns, and the public wearing of masks from 196 countries and found that countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing had much lower per-capita mortality rates (1)
    ...
    Another study from Germany reported that face masks reduced the number of newly registered SARS‐CoV‐2 infections by between 15 and 75 per cent over a 20-day period after their mandatory introduction (2). Overall, the authors estimate that face masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 47 per cent.
    ...
    The general consensus seems to be that masks – even, simple cloth ones – while clearly not foolproof can significantly slow the spread of the virus and reduce deaths

    (1) Leffler, C.T. et al. Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020. medRxiv (2020). DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231

    (2) Mitze, T. et al. Face Masks Considerably Reduce Covid-19 Cases in Germany: A Synthetic Control Method Approach. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13319 (2020). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3620634

    (3) Fischer, E.P. et al. Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Science Advancese (2020). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd3083

    (4) Simha, P.P. and Rao, P.S.M. Universal trends in human cough airflows at large distances featured. Physics of Fluids (2020). DOI: 10.1063/5.0021666

    (5) Sickbert-Bennett, E.E. et al. Filtration Efficiency of Hospital Face Mask Alternatives Available for Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Internal Medicine (2020). DOI:
    ..."
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298
    Face Masks Really Do Matter. The Scientific Evidence Is Growing.
    Face masks are emerging as one of the most powerful weapons to fight the new coronavirus, with growing evidence that facial coverings help prevent transmission
    The research Dr. Redfield cited included a recently published study suggesting that universal use of surgical masks helped reduce rates of confirmed coronavirus infections among health-care workers at the Mass General Brigham health-care system in Massachusetts.
    Researchers from around the world have found many different kinds of masks can significantly reduce the spread of coronavirus,
    Their findings largely align with other recently published research.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/facemasks-shown-to-cut-spread-of-covid-19-9r92zfpb8
    Facemasks slow spread of coronavirus by 40 per cent, study shows
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    17 Oct '20 08:14
    @humy said
    So now you deny I posted more than one.
    OK, I post them yet again and you please tell us how this is NOT more than one;

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
    Face masks: what the data say
    The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic,
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-gu ...[text shortened]... o-cut-spread-of-covid-19-9r92zfpb8
    Facemasks slow spread of coronavirus by 40 per cent, study shows
    If the first link you posted is crap I see no reason to waste time reading more crap you obviously didn't read yourself. The CDC has discredited itself with contradictory advice. Don't bother posting any more crap from them. They are proven liars.

    Why does the UK have more C19 deaths per capita than the Netherlands? The UK made wearing face masks mandatory. By your logic the UK should have less deaths, not more.

    You are at odds with reality.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    17 Oct '20 10:099 edits
    @metal-brain said
    If the first link you posted is crap I see no reason to waste time reading more crap you obviously didn't read yourself.
    In other words, you call any link that proves one of your assertion as being wrong as "crap" pretending to not read them even if when you just have and then you just say I don't read them. This shows just how unreasonable you are.
    I did read them. That's how I knew which one's to post. You deny the existence of the evidence and then refuse to read the links that show the evidence and thus prove you wrong; you fool nobody here by that.
    So you refuse to spend just one minute to read the following? :

    https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/public-health/how-effective-are-face-masks-at-slowing-spread-of-coronavirus/
    By far, the strongest evidence for mask-wearing can be found in real-world data or so-called epidemiologic data. Leffler and colleagues analysed data on demographics, testing, lockdowns, and the public wearing of masks from 196 countries and found that countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing had much lower per-capita mortality rates (1)
    ...
    Another study from Germany reported that face masks reduced the number of newly registered SARS‐CoV‐2 infections by between 15 and 75 per cent over a 20-day period after their mandatory introduction (2). Overall, the authors estimate that face masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 47 per cent.
    ...
    The general consensus seems to be that masks – even, simple cloth ones – while clearly not foolproof can significantly slow the spread of the virus and reduce deaths.
    ..."

    The only reason why you are saying you refuse to take just one minute to read the above quotes I already posted is because you know they prove you wrong and you have the indecency of refusing to admit when you obviously know when you are shown to be wrong. You fool nobody here.
    There is evidence that face masks are effective; I have shown you the relevant links; I have shown you my source of information; denying the evidence exists by refusing to read my links that mention/explain the evidence is no defence but shows us all you know you are proven wrong but are not man enough to just for once in your life to admit when you know you are wrong. Who are your trying to kid here? NOBODY here is so STUPID as to be fooled by that!
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    18 Oct '20 01:16
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    18 Oct '20 07:0612 edits
    @metal-brain said
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
    it first states this false false premise below NOT backed up by the evidence but proven false by the evidence I already showed;
    We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.
    it then asserts
    Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).
    which is fine but then it makes a false inference from that above with
    The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.

    You cannot logically prove that
    "a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection"
    from an arbitrary definition of
    "significant exposure to Covid-19 "
    that
    "The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. "
    -What if you pass, say, 3000 people in a public places during, say, 20 days and, say, 50 are infected? Could there then be more than a 1% chance of catching it during those 20 days? Obviously that just depends entirely on the conditions; were THEY wearing face masks? how much social distancing? etc. And the link doesn't do the maths and doesn't show any of the maths and I have already shown you the studies that show the good evidence that face masks ARE effective at slowing the spread. Mere hearsay not backed by logic or evidence like in your link does nothing to prove that evidence invalid.
    This is just a rogue assertion in a report based on a both a false premise and a false inference and not backed up by the evidence but rather contradicted by the evidence elsewhere.
    Try again.

    People like you and Trump, telling/encouraging people to do risky things and with 'alternative facts' (LIES) such as saying masks don't help (a LIE) so don't wear face masks, are already responsible for THOUSANDS of extra preventable deaths. But I guess people like you don't care because you have no conscience.

    I have already proved you assertion that there is no evidence that masks are effective wrong with some of my previous links and your link does nothing to invalidate that evidence or those other links. Do you STILL refuse to spend just a few seconds reading the quotes from the link I already posted here twice now that mention just some of the evidence that proves you wrong? You fool nobody here.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    18 Oct '20 07:37
    @humy said
    it first states this false false premise below NOT backed up by the evidence but proven false by the evidence I already showed;
    We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.
    it then asserts
    [quote] Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 ...[text shortened]... d here twice now that mention just some of the evidence that proves you wrong? You fool nobody here.
    Why does the UK have more C19 deaths per capita than the Netherlands? The UK made wearing face masks mandatory. By your logic the UK should have less deaths, not more.

    You are at odds with reality. The Netherlands proves you wrong.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    18 Oct '20 08:054 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Why does the UK have more C19 deaths per capita than the Netherlands?
    for lots of reasons involving many variables; Amount of social distancing, Population density; How often do people meet each other and in what numbers and conditions.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-53078368
    "...Norway and Denmark are smaller countries. And population density, or how crowded and global a country's cities are, will affect the spread of a virus. Also, the age and health of those infected will make a difference to how many people die.

    But the actions taken make a difference too. ..."
    The UK made wearing face masks mandatory
    generally in public places within a certain distance of somebody, yes.
    By your logic the UK should have less deaths, not more.

    Nope. Because infection rates are determined my many variables, not just face masks; Amount of social distancing, Population density; How often do people meet each other and in what numbers and conditions. etc.

    also;
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-53078368
    "...The UK currently has the third highest number of recorded coronavirus deaths in the world. Only the United States and Brazil have had more, ..."

    therefore, according to your new implied moronic logic, because there are more deaths in the US where, unlike the UK, masks aren't compulsory in all their states, that proves face masks effective at reducing the number of deaths from coronavirus; a case of a correct premise but false inference but still a conclusion that just happens to be correct despite of this; the conclusion isn't correct by that false inference but rather for other reasons.

    People like you and Trump, telling/encouraging people to do risky things and with 'alternative facts' (LIES) such as saying masks don't help (a LIE) so don't wear face masks, are already responsible for THOUSANDS of extra preventable deaths. But I guess people like you don't care because you have no conscience.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    18 Oct '20 20:262 edits
    By chance, while looking for something else entirely, I found this video that, just after 2.10 mins in, almost inadvertently if not actually inadvertently gives yet another bit of good evidence of the very high effectiveness of masks although to properly see how so you must first listen to the whole of first part of the video to find the proper context for that;

    YouTube
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    19 Oct '20 12:16
    People with a political bias don't like to use common sense when it is needed. Here is an experiment to prove the common sense people are too dogmatic to accept until they see for themselves.

    Find a friend who smokes cannabis or tobacco. Have your friend inhale smoke and quickly put on a cloth mask or any mask you want to test. Do this in a window with direct sunlight so the smoke is more visible and have him cough or sneeze. Film it with your phone.

    Seeing is believing. Cloth masks are worthless.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    19 Oct '20 12:479 edits
    @metal-brain said
    People with a political bias don't like to use common sense when it is needed. Here is an experiment to prove the common sense people are too dogmatic to accept until they see for themselves.

    Find a friend who smokes cannabis or tobacco. Have your friend inhale smoke and quickly put on a cloth mask or any mask you want to test. Do this in a window with direct sunlight ...[text shortened]... ve him cough or sneeze. Film it with your phone.

    Seeing is believing. Cloth masks are worthless.
    Experiments and thus the science shows cloth masks block most of the virus-infected droplets from infected people and whether they also block smokes particles, which are often much smaller and thus often much harder to block, is irrelevant to whether they block most droplets and does nothing to invalidate the science findings i.e. the evidence that they block most of the droplets from infected people.
    To suggest that masks are worthless at blocking infected droplets because they don't block smoke particles is as stupid as suggesting a fish net is worthless at catching fish because it doesn't catch microscopic plankton and that would be a stupid suggestion for the same kind of reason.
    That what you claim to be "common sense" assertion of yours is what near-enough everyone else would call "stupid" and NOT "common sense".

    There, sorted.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    19 Oct '20 14:30
    People with a political bias don't like to use common sense when it is needed. Here is an experiment to prove the common sense people are too dogmatic to accept until they see for themselves.

    Find a friend who smokes cannabis or tobacco. Have your friend inhale smoke and quickly put on a cloth mask or any mask you want to test. Do this in a window with direct sunlight so the smoke is more visible and have him cough or sneeze. Film it with your phone.

    Seeing is believing. Cloth masks are worthless.
Back to Top