@freemo @torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

You shouldn't be in the same room as others without a properly worn respirator. You shouldn't go into a room that others have recently been in.

It's an airborne disease. That means if anyone else within temporal/spacial proximity were smoking and you could smell the smoke, you're too close (in time or space).

Although smell is a parts-per-billion sensor and likely can detect levels that would not result in viral inoculation, it's a simple way to explain to people how cautious they should be if they don't want to get infected.

@Pat

Fair.

Though to be clear airborne diseases arent o literally airborne. That is the virus only persists in droplets. So smoke is going to carry way more than the virus would.

@torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

@freemo @torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

>"Though to be clear airborne diseases arent o literally airborne. That is the virus only persists in droplets. So smoke is going to carry way more than the virus would."

It's not the particle size with the smoke/virus comparison. Airborne COVID-19 can be in particles nearly as small the virus itself, <200nm. Anything below 1um is going to hang around in the air a long time. The difference between smoke and virus is that smoke particles can continue to cause sensors in the nose to detect them for days or even weeks, whereas a virus will die usually within hours. The virus dies before their particles settle.

But particles containing virus can spread throughout an entire room within a few minutes while the virus is still viable.

@Pat

The maller the droplet size the shorter it can persist since it will dry out faster. larger droplets fall out of the air quicker and also dont persist. Smoke will persist much longer in terms of smell as they are smaller, dont dry out, and most importantly are ionized.

@torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

@Pat

To put it in perspective, according to studies normal breathing produces virtually no aerosol and no risk (unlike smoke). Which that alone should give you a good idea why airborne doesnt really mean airborne in the usual sense you think of.

@torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

@freemo @torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

There's a lot more to it.

Every breath contains sub-mircon particles. Smaller particles also tend to come from deeper in the respiratory tract, which is where more COVID-19 virus is in an infected person. Also, smaller particles are more likely to infect a person deeper in their respiratory tract when they breath them in. (which is bad)

Re particle size, larger particles can partially evaporate after leaving the mouth/nose before they come in contact with a surface and then become airborne, even though they leave the mouth/nose as "droplets" (>1um). This is why cloth masks are partially effective (20-30%), because they stop some of the larger droplets, but sub-micron particles flow right through a cloth mask or a surgical mask.

But a respirator can stop sub-micron particles using electrostatic filtering and prevent virtually all particles containing virus from entering the wearer's respiratory system (when properly worn).

@Pat

sub micron particles are considered aeresol. They arent really produced in any detectable quantity with normal breathing, though they arent non existant. However unless its humid out they are going to evaporate super fast as well.

The point here is that airborne isnt airborne in the same sense as smoke.

@torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng

@icedquinn

mask studies have mostly been very handwavey indeed.

@NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@icedquinn That they'll handwave critiques of bad science for the narrative shows that it's totally reasonable to handwave "the science" itself. Academic scientific journals are now just opinion columns.

@mkljczk @Pat @ducheng @freemo @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

Depends on the journal. There are many great journals, some stink. Journals arent about validating conclusions, they just make sure the data and quotes and citations are all valid. Its up to the scientist reading it to evaluate the weight of the study itself based on the content. The journal just assures the reader that there arent bald face lies.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo Yeah but how does one know which ones are robust and which ones are trash? You can’t. Not really. Especially not without reading the content first and not just the abstract. So in the end, most people, including most smart people, make it an issue of trust. In the last decade or so, reason after reason to distrust academia has emerged.

Interesting that starting in 2020, the most extreme demand for trust blasted forth: not only are you required to trust, but you aren’t allowed to question without the right credentials. Comply or lose your job, get ostracized from your friends and family, and basically just see a game over screen. They did this to people with plenty of reason to distrust, and who had guns.

This is a powder keg.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

You are right, you need to read the content and understand it and be trained as a scientist to understand it.

Reading abstracts or otherwise being untrained wont help you. Thats my point, the journals are fine, they arent trash, neither are the studies. What is trash is how those studies are abused and misrepresented to sell an agenda.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo The issue isn't that these journals are written for a certain audience -- academic scientists, basically -- the issue is that people are having the expectation that they trust a body of institutions that are notoriously untrustworthy imposed upon them by pain of the destruction of their lives.

Even assuming that these academics are all pure of heart, the expectation that you have to either get a doctorate in virology or have no real say what public policy is ultimately going to be is abusively technocratic. When you take on board the reality that academic journals and universities have a long history of being bribed into just conveniently arriving at the "correct" conclusions or having those conclusions guided by ideology even in cases where money isn't involved, and you combine it with government/corporate policy being based directly on those conclusions, you get outright tyranny. You get Stalin shit.

The fundamental issue of distrust, and the issue of that distrust being completely reasonable, is a bit of context that can't be sidestepped with an appeal to theory land. That's why these conversations getting into the weeds about the size of the virus vs the size of the mask holes, or transmissibility of different variants, etc, are a waste of time; because anybody has intellectual and moral license to just casually blow off any of these details as dubious. From an epistemological perspective, the response to COVID-19 has poisoned the well on academic science for years to come, and shouting "ANTI-VAXXER! BLAGGGHHH!" or just carrying on with these in-the-weeds debates like they mean something won't do anything but exacerbate it.

Academic science has been reduced to the same epistemological weight as an opinion column in a tabloid.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

> the issue is that people are having the expectation that they trust a body of institutions that are notoriously untrustworthy imposed upon them by pain of the destruction of their lives.

Yea largely not true. The academic institutions arent untrustworthy, its the people (media and general public) misinterpreting the studies that is the issue. Everytime someone goes on about this shit and how untrustworthy they are every time its just them completely misunderstanding the material or its purpose.

Its easy to think science is failing when you cant even understand science to begin with.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo I have a formal science background. Universities are extremely tainted by money and ideology. Spare everybody this crap about how trustworthy they are.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

After your last multi-day tantrum I really dont put much stock in your ability to objectively evaluate much of anything.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo You don't need to. You can just be wrong, bitch nigga.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

I could, but I wont.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo Glad to hear you're going to be taking my seriously then, in the interest of being correct for once.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche @icedquinn @mkljczk @Pat @ducheng @freemo @torresjrjr
>academic journals and unis have a long history of being bribed
Do you have an example?

@Hyolobrika

I suspect if he actually means anything legitimate (he has a history of talking nonsense) he is probably thinking of cases where scientist were paid to publish knowingly bad science. An example being that scientist who created the whole vaccines cause autism nonsense.

That said the whole implication that it is commonplace is of course complete nonsense.

@icedquinn @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo incidentally VICP has formally ruled that they do.

its because adjuvants can cause an autoimmune response which in turn attacks the brain.

@Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@icedquinn

source please, ill review

@Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr don't have the case number on hand. they paid damages though.

@icedquinn

Oh you dont mean a study shows it causes it, only that an individual happened to get some sort of brain damage indirectly where a vaccine was implicated. Thats a bit different and not in line with the origina claim.

@Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr

>"don't have the case number on hand. they paid damages though."

I see. A jury of their peers said so.

That's what they mean by "peer reviewed " -- 12 randomly selected people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

@Pat >That’s what they mean by “peer reviewed “ – 12 randomly selected people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Reminds me of academia. It’s a handful of people who weren’t smart enough to make it in the private sector.

@freemo @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr

@gentooman

Not my experience at all. I routinely try to hire experts from academia who have dont impressive work. More often then not they refuse because they arent in it for the money.

@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

#4chan #tech #technology #g #installgentoo #gentoo Post From 84849280 @freemo @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo Cope.

@gentooman @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

#4chan #tech #technology #g #installgentoo #gentoo Post From 84852323 @NEETzsche @freemo @Hyolobrika @Pat @ducheng @icedquinn @mkljczk @torresjrjr

@gentooman @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @freemo @Pat @torresjrjr

My last job, it was a running gag to tell this to customers. Never failed to get a smile and a laugh.

#4chan #tech #technology #g #installgentoo #gentoo Post From 84853714 @Burnt @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @freemo @Pat @torresjrjr

@Pat @freemo @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr there is no jury in a VICP trial. Its a cabinet of vaccine advocates who try to find any excuse your claim doesn't fit within the narrow rubrick of allowed claims.

Juries used to find the companies liable so they had their own custom court made.

@icedquinn @freemo @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @Pat @ducheng @mkljczk @torresjrjr Freemo claims any studies that find autism are junk, and then ask for studies showing vaccines can cause autism. Why even waste your time with a guy whose logic circuits were obviously destroyed by vaccination?

@freemo Nobody cares about your opinion. @Hyolobrika @icedquinn @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@duke

Me and my nearly 20K followers would suggest otherwise... but hey im sure those 10 followers of yours wait to hear what you have to say with baited breath.

@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo Please go dilate. The adults are talking.

@duke @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

Awww how cute, you think you are an adult now... Have fun you two playing make believe.

@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo Blocked for being a butthurt faggot. @NEETzsche @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@duke Blocking Freemo makes him wrong according to himself.

@freemo @Hyolobrika @Pat @ducheng @icedquinn @mkljczk @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche

I never said that.

@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo You said that, and I’m quoting, “blocking people and exiting the conversation simply means you have no value to bring and that their time is better spent elsewhere.” @duke blocked you. Therefore, you have no value to bring and that his time is better spent elsewhere. Basically, you’re wrong.

So.

You lost this argument, per your own standards. That’s decided. Would you like to retract this claim and issue an apology so that it can’t be used to summarily dismiss your positions in future conversations with prejudice?

@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche @freemo @Hyolobrika @Pat @ducheng @duke @icedquinn @mkljczk @torresjrjr

@NEETzsche
Having no value to bring is not the same as being wrong. I admit, and dont particularly care, that he perceives me as having no value. To him.
@icedquinn @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo >Having no value to bring is not the same as being wrong. I admit, and dont particularly care, that he perceives me as having no value. To him.

Your statement:

>“blocking people and exiting the conversation simply means you have no value to bring and that their time is better spent elsewhere.”

All respectable users here know that means you’re declaring them wrong outright. You have made a laughingstock of yourself already. All you have to do to extricate yourself from this situation is admit that you were wrong and that you lost the vax debate to us. Instead, you’re doubling down on a 2+2=5-tier non-argument.

Why?

@icedquinn @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr @ChristiJunior

@NEETzsche

If you want to be a moron and imply what I said means something other than I said, go for it... talking to you is a waste of my time.. argue whatever nonsense youd like

@icedquinn @ChristiJunior @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo @Hyolobrika @icedquinn @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr you vile poison pushing shill, this is the polar opposite of what happened. wakefield did good research which was originally published in the lancet, then drug company hacks came out and pressured (bribed) the journal to retract and set on a years long campaign to destroy his career using their lapdog customers (also "bribed")

@Hyolobrika Yeah. Look into "Jennifer" Pritzker and how "she" gave tons of money to different universities in the United States to start pushing trannyism.

@icedquinn @mkljczk @Pat @ducheng @freemo @torresjrjr

@freemo @NEETzsche @icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr "the journals are fine" "the studies aren't trash" you're trash actually

@NEETzsche they proxied early mask justifications because it works when *symptomatic* influenza sufferers wear them it controls the spread somewhat.

some credentialed folk raised complaints that covid is much smaller and so the masks will be less effective. i goalposted wanting to see plaque assays (it was originally something else but a virology nerd corrected me on this) that proved they did in fact work and the particulate sizes were irrelevant. to my knowledge this was never done. one or two attempts to prove masks work on covid did get tried but their n's were like four people and in one case they showed the masks literally did nothing.

its also been proven that they lower your blood oxygen level to below safe working conditions which was confirmed by OSHA and they were then censored because the holy fauci and cdc would have been contradicted.

other credentialed folk questioned what the point of masking is when you're in an environment with recirculated air (ex. an aircraft) and also that because all they do is halve the distance of droplets, their efficacy in places like trams is lesser. basically there was a formula that the more people the more frequently you had to clean because even halving droplet spread you still get accumulation of droplets when 400 people pass through.

they don't sterilize the bus after every stop, most if anything clean once a day. so accumulation happens throughout the day and all the masks did was make it take two hours instead of ten minutes.

there are actual things that could have been done like 222nm UV lighting which is both safe for human contact and inactivates viruses. but this was not done.

vaccinated countries are superspreading and continuing to do so with their face diapers. so what the fuck was the point?

@Pat @ducheng @freemo @mkljczk @torresjrjr

@icedquinn

One point of clarity, the co2 levels are acceptable for short term exposure but considered harmful only for long term exposure.

@NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo nobody is putting employees on pomodoro schedules where they go outside to breathe five minutes every half hour.

@NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr

@freemo they do have school children expected to sit wearing face diapers for hours on end in schools despite this being known harmful.

@NEETzsche @Pat @ducheng @mkljczk @torresjrjr

@icedquinn

Agreed. Like i said i wasnt trying to negate your point. Just pointing out some relevant nuance.

@NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr