Imagine if we relied on “personal responsibility” instead of the law to combat other public health issues like drunk driving. No rules--just “you do you”. If you're comfortable driving drunk and wish to take the risk, go ahead and do it--why worry yourself with harming anyone else?
Wait, that doesn't work? Then why do maskless conferences, flights, and events work at a time when we know #COVID19 risks are rising. Don't take personal responsibility; take public responsibility. #WearAMask
I'm sorry but there is scientific evidence (and was there before #Covid19 ) that masks don't help against coronaviruses spreading (as expected from physics).
I added two more recent studies to the list in my timeline just yesterday.
Also, recently in Italy a judge sentenced against some of these anti-covid measures, stressing that no obligation can be imposed just because of *presumed* risk (something that doesn't apply for driving drunk, where the risk is certain). At least not in Italy.
So please consider revisiting what you took for granted, thank you.
https://qoto.org/@post/109655921887846230
https://qoto.org/@post/109655906578045257
Other studies:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
I can go on for a while...
@post @familydoctor I'm confused. The first study you shared that I clicked found "Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals." Weren't you suggesting the opposite?
You meant the last one.
Welcome to scientific studies: you need to read them, not stopping at abstract; you must take into accounts the methods, the sample, etc and understand for yourself whether they provide weak or strong evidence.
That paper also says: "There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols (Table 1b)."
Isn't this confusing? It's always like this with scientific studies. Check the samples in this study and in the others and draw your own conclusions.
@post @familydoctor I'm not going to convince you, but since you entered my thread, I think it's important people see the opposite. You've clearly done research, which means you are aware there are plenty of studies that show masks work, and you cherrypicked the ones that told the story you wanted.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.13080
One can find MORE studies that say masks work than don't. I still urge people toward caution.
As I said, I have read them all and took into account the methods to form my conclusion.
If you stop at the abstracts, you can find everything and its opposite.
You are not discovering anything new, it has always been like this, you are just showing that you are unfamiliar with scientific publications.
You accuse me of cherrypicking, but you yourself noticed how in one of the studies I shared, researchers drew the opposite conclusion.
So go for a consistent attack if you have to.
My best friends were physicians. I know exactly what the knowledge of physicians is focused on and it does not include the basic statistical tools to judge the studies. You can verify this by yourself by simply asking them how they judge the quality of a study.
On the other hand, the nanoparticles physicist who introduced the term "nanopathologies" (Dr. Maria Antonietta Gatti) has been working for years on a filter against nanoparticles (same order of magnitude as viruses) and has always stated that blocking viruses with masks is nonsense.
I urge people to read all the studies on their own and ignore researchers' conclusions and focus on methods and statistical relevance instead. Then draw your own conclusion.
I don't believe in anything, I aim to have the means to judge independently. Note that blind trust in institutions (including "experts") is an ideology called positivism that has allowed enormous crimes in the history of humanity.
P.S. there are tons of studies on the harms of mask wearing, so your preventative approach needs to be reviewed.
@augieray @post @familydoctor
The way I look at it is:
Wearing a mask may reduce your ability to get covid and transmit it to others. Not wearing a mask has no detrimental impact on me. Therefore; ill wear a mask in enclosed spaces just in case it works.
In regards to the seatbelt analogy, I was in a car crash in the 70's and police indicated if I was wearing one I'd have been dead from head injuries. So seatbelts alone weren't the answer but in conjunction with better car structures.
@Aquila_Audax @augieray @familydoctor
Sorry but wearing masks is incredibly harmful, not only for carbon dioxide but also for proliferation of bacteria and viruses and inhalation of microplastics. Not to mention the psychological impact especially on children.
There is so much evidence on the harmfulness and ineffectiveness of masks that insisting is now becoming criminal.
Remember my words for the next few years or decades: everything was already known, the information was there within everyone's reach and you will all be morally responsible for ignoring it.
@post @Aquila_Audax @familydoctor None of that is true. Medical professionals and those working in dangerous environments have been wearing masks for decades. There is no CO2 or other risks that outweigh the benefits.
I have low tolerance for people spreading BS. I've been patient with the dialog because I try to be open to it. But I'll block you if you continue to post idiocy like claiming masks are "incredibly harmful." You do you, but I won't stand for unsafe misinformation in my threads.
@augieray @Aquila_Audax @familydoctor
I provided the studies, you didn't read them, you picked the abstract of one of them in an attempt to contradict (you casually clicked on the last one first, uh?), then completely changed argument by accusing me of cherrypicking and in the end you felt the urge to reply "believe what you want".
Masks have only been used in operating rooms which is a completely different situation. Despite this, they have always been used without scientific evidence. When studies have been done in a scientific way it has been seen that the masks are unhygienic and counterproductive even in the operating room.
I'm sorry but it's all written in the studies you don't want to read so I'm not going to share other links.
Who cares if you block me, you are just a random guy on a social network. Block the scientific publications if you can.
@post @Aquila_Audax @augieray @familydoctor OK now you're getting silly.
@ariaflame @Aquila_Audax @augieray @familydoctor
Accusing a stranger of cherrypicking to show "what you wanted" (want what?) is silly and offensive.
I gave the benefit of the doubt in my first answer. Then I ascertained that here there is not a problem of lack of information but an ideological approach.
That said, I won't allow anyone to treat me as an idiot. OP's responses were dishonest and aimed at stating preconceptions instead of discussing freely.
OP even tried to pass off a newspaper article as a scientific study. What's silly is trying to fool people with childish tricks everyone know at this point.
@post @ariaflame @Aquila_Audax @familydoctor
Okay, I'm blocking you. You have a giant victim complex. I said you cherry-picked, but I went out of my way to acknowledge one can find studies on both sides of the question. And the articles I posted clearly had voluminous links to studies that show masks work.
You're free to believe and post what you want. You're not free to toss around accusations and call me or others dishonest. Best of luck to you, whether you wear a mask or not.
@augieray @ariaflame @Aquila_Audax @familydoctor
In my first answer, I underlined how what you want (obligations based on nothing) have been judged illegal in Italy by several judges.
We are bringing scientific evidence to the courts (where a discussion can't end with "believe what you want") and dismantling this authoritarian drift one piece at a time.
I am here to differentiate propaganda victims from accomplices by offering the information.
I'm not the one who's going to live the rest of his life feeling guilty.
🇳🇱
Hey. So I originally got the attention of this thread as a moderator. After reviewing I can say that I dont think this quite crosses the line into something I would take any action on as a moderator. We have in the past moderated against blatant COVID misinformation, but it isnt based simply on what I personally deem incorrect, as there is a lot of room for discussion. The language is certainly hyperbolic and I wouldnt agree with the idea that masks are "incredibly harmful". Nor would I agree with the conclusion that they do nothing. That said he is arguing his case politely, and doing his best to provide evidence (even if he may be wrong or providing insufficient evidence). He also isnt crossing the line into implausable conspiracy theory nonsense.
Truth be told the issue of CO2 and effectiveness against COVID are open issues. It is true we do not have really good evidence to concretely conclude how effective it is against covid, though I think the evidence is clear enough that it does have **some** benefit. But it is a hard thing to test and show concretely and as such it is an open question for scientific consideration. It is also true that CO2 levels when wearing masks exceeds the healthy recommended **long-term** exposure levels. This is a weak argument when we talk about short-term mask usage, but the point is this is well within the bounds for an open conversation on these points.
Furthermore there are some legitimate concerns with masks for children. The issue of the effect of masks on deaf children who rely on lip reading for example is significant.
So for the record I want to make clear I do strongly disagree with his language and conclusions here regarding masks, but it is well within the realm of things that are open to healthy, mature, respectful discussion on and has not crossed over into conspiracy theory land yet, lets keep it that way, thanks.
@freemo @augieray @ariaflame @Aquila_Audax @familydoctor
I said CO2 is that's just one of the issues.
1. A wet mask is the ideal environment for the proliferation of fungi and bacteria that are inhaled and spread with the breath and with the hands.
It also contributes to the spread of viruses especially if bacteriophages such as SarsCov2. It is in fact known that if this virus manages to remain intact for more than a few minutes outside of our body it is thanks to the proliferation inside of bacteria, much more resistant organisms.
2. There are many studies on microplastics including detections of them in the lungs, here there are some:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135421002311
https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/20/6859
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8802354/
3. The psychological effect is also very harmful for various reasons that I pass over. But it is important to mention that fear lowers the immune defenses due to well-known neurochemical mechanisms. Masks have a great impact in continually reminding that there is a pandemic, keeping people in a constant state of anxiety.
As a final note, pre-2020 scientific knowledge pointed to lockdowns as counterproductive. They were implemented anyway by turning what we knew on its head.
After two years of studies on the effectiveness of these lockdowns, they are totally destroyed as ineffective and counterproductive and I hope you agree at least on this.
After such a thing people should question the other measures as well instead of shouting "conspiracy theory!!1!1!!!!".
@post @familydoctor Your idea of an "attack" maybe needs to be adjusted. I literally made the point it's possible to cherrypick studies one way or the other. Bottom line: You can choose to believe what you want, but people I trust in public health continue to suggest masks work, and there's evidence to support it. In the end, billions may suffer from chronic health impairments because of COVID. I would rather take the chance masks work than that they don't--it's such a minor inconvenience.