PETER HITCHENS: Wear a mask if you want - but understand it's about fear and control, NOT health...

Are you from another country? Mask wearing mandates was common in pretty much every state in 2020.

https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-pol...unity-health-center-covid-19-testing-capacity
The Baker-Polito Administration today issued an order requiring the use of masks or face coverings in public places where they cannot socially distance from others. The Administration also announced expanded community health center COVID-19 testing capacity at centers throughout the Commonwealth.
Mask and Face Covering Order: The Baker-Polito Administration has ordered all residents over the age of two to use a face covering or mask in public places where maintaining proper social distancing measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are not possible. This statewide order goes into effect on May 6th and supersedes previously issued guidance relative to mask use.
This order applies to all workers and customers of businesses and other organizations that are currently open to the public and permitted to operate as COVID-19 Essential Businesses, such as grocery stores, pharmacies and other retail stores. Residents are also required to wear a mask or face covering at all times when using any means of transportation service or public mass transit.

 

There you go again dissing a CDC sourced as "disinformation". Remember Fake Science Kills.

The CDC linked paper reviews over 10 double blind clinical studies conducted over more than three quarters of a century designed to discover ways to prevent the spread of viruses. They all concluded that there is no statistically significant evidence that face masks reduce the spread.

Follow the science, reject Fake Political Science.

“Face Masks

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10).”
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Now you know why Fauci's early statements admitted that wearing masks is useless.

 

China has mandatory vax, mask, and restricted movement. Boy, that sure worked out great.

 

Your link is NOT a facemask study in any way. Rather it is simply looking at respiratory virus circulation during the first year of the Covid pandemic. The 50% reduction that you reference is comparing respiratory virus rates from 2016 to 2020. Obviously, this is primarily due to the reality that society was largely shut down during 2020. Of course this shutdown, along with social distancing was going to drastically reduce rates of other types of respiratory infections being spread. To pretend like they are claiming this is due to face masking is downright silly.

 

In Michigan, that code was executive order 2020-147

"Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed executive order 2020-147, which reiterates that individuals are required to wear a face covering whenever they are in an indoor public space. It also requires the use of face coverings in crowded outdoor spaces. Most significantly, the order requires any business that is open to the public to refuse entry or service to people who refuse to wear a face covering, with limited exceptions. Governors in the states of Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Washington have imposed similar requirements on businesses."

Face masks to be mandatory in Michigan (monroenews.com)

 

It's most definitely a study. Pending peer-review, because it's so new. But a undoubtedly a study. I responded to a post that cherry-picked a OLD studies that state that the sample size is too small to be considered significant, or that the adherence was weak. But you didn't answer the question. So you again cherry-picked my post. I'll repeat the question: What is it you expect to gain by trying to convince people not to wear masks? Are you not concerned that all this propaganda to not wear masks, which you help spread, is causing loss of life? And if you're not, is it because the loss is of life that is outside of the mother's womb? Do your religious beliefs only cover concern for life BEFORE they are born?

The fact that you didn't answer the question indicates that you probably consider the answer embarrassing.

 

I did not dismiss the CDC as disinformation. I dismissed YOUR post as disinformation because you cherry-pick a quote and eliminate the very relevant fact that the sample size is too small, and adherence to mark wearing is questionable. The CDC does not do that. YOU do.

And my question is WHY? What is the purpose of disseminating propaganda that could lead to loss of human life?

Mask wearing is a great thing. It saves lives. Either of the wearer, or of the people around those who wear them. I wish we could have more of it in our society. We don't have widespread use of masks for multiple reasons. But what is the purpose of discouraging people who decide they DO want to wear masks?

 

Huh? Did I say this was not a study? What are you talking about? On top of that, you are confusing me with someone else because I have not provided any studies in this thread.

What I said was the study you provided is not a FACE MASK study. It was a study that simply looked at rates of respiratory virus transmission in 2016 vs 2020 without any attempt to attribute the changes to anything in particular other than the very generic term of "Covid mitigation measures", of which there were many. The only person that called it a FACE MASK study was you, NOT the authors. Logic tells you that the primary reason that rates of respiratory virus transmission went down in 2020 vs 2016 was because in 2020 society was shut down and social interactions were severely limited. For you to attribute that drop to face masking or even hand washing is silly. At some point, common sense needs to come into the equation.

 

Again reject Fake Political Science. Follow the data. The CDC linked paper addresses face masks specifically -- among other things.

“***Face Masks***

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10).”

Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (*** mine)
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

 

Yes.

I edited my post and corrected that as soon as I realized the fact. You can re-read it, if you want. And you'll see that changes nothing about my point.

Don't be confused by the fact that they call it "common mitigation practices". This included social distancing, but the most prevalent practice in participants was wearing a mask (over 89%)

But, most importantly, you still don't answer the question. Even if you didn't provide the study we were discussing when you jumped in, I have seen you try to criticize the study I provided. Not a peep about what I pointed out: that the way the poster presented the study omitted a very relevant piece of information. So I must assume you agree that the purpose is to try to persuade people not to use masks. And I would like to know the reason why anybody would take such a dangerous position.

 

First you need to acknowledge that the 50% reduction that you pointed to was NOT attributed to face masking by your study or even common sense. Everybody was exposed to employers, stores and restaurants etc being closed; For you to point to some 89% number for face masking thing makes no sense. Of course it was the shutdown that primarily stopped the transmission of respiratory viruses, and the authors of your study said not one thing to contradict that obvious reality. You are the only one trying to falsely masquerade that as a "masking study", certainly not the authors.

That was the sole point that I addressed you about, and to this moment you are still denying that undeniable reality. If you want to acknowledge that your study is not attributing it to masking, I will happily answer your question which was clearly an attempt to change the subject by playing the "hey look, a squirrel!" game.

In truth, its not that hard to respond to your question, but I have learned if you just keep chasing down non-sequiturs that nothing is ever accomplished in conversations. If the first part of the conversation is settled, then and only then can we move on to the next topic.

 

~ It means they are complying with state government requirements and possibly insurance companies policies for liability reasons.

 

Wrong! First we need you to answer the question. Be it 50% or 10% is irrelevant. It saves lives! Why are you so intent on defending propaganda that would prevent human lives being saved?

Clearly it's excruciatingly hard, given that you are not the first one who, after multiple attempts to change the subject, and having failed to evade it, have no option but to just refuse to answer.

Isn't it awful when you realize that responding to a simple question would completely obliterate your case for something you've been clinging to for such a long time!

 

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, you falsely masqueraded the 50% reduction as if that study was measuring mitigation and attributing that 50% to masks as opposed to the blatantly obvious which is that of course respiratory infections were down in a time of economic shutdown and a massive reduction in any sort of social interactions across the entire country.

As far as you question, yes, that is in fact very easy to answer. The juice is not the squeeze. For all of the negatives associated with masking, the reduction in disease transmission is not worth the effort, and you could very easily argue that it created a false sense of security.

Studies do not show a drastic reduction in covid transmission between masked and unmasked as far as the wearer of the mask itself. What does this tell us? Well, there are two aspects to mask wearing in regards to disease transmission. One is filtering out aerosolized virus, and the other is containing respiratory secretions. Not showing a significant decrease in acquiring the disease for the mask wearer indicates that it does very little in regards to stopping the transmission of aerosolized virus. The smart argument from where you sit is to then argue that a mask wearer is benefitting those around them, and this would be specifically because of containing respiratory particles within their own mask. While that certainly does not hurt, nobody is credibly trying to say that contact from direct respiratory secretions into the mucuc membranes of people nearby is anywhere close to being the primary means fo transmission of this virus. This virus is beyond a doubt almost exclusively spread via aerosolized virus.

For that reason, the negatives associated with mandatory mask-wearing ( and there are many), far outweigh the benefits of doing so. If an individual wants to wear a mask, by all means they should. To mandate it however is nonsensical.

 

There is no state govt requirement. There are so many other medical liabilities not sure why insurance companies would focus on COVID.

 

Is an EO the same as a law?

Thanks for researching that. It does seem draconian, but it probably saved many lives.

 

I am not sure what relevant differentiation you are trying to create....but...Did you ask for a law? Or did you ask for a code?




For argument sake I looked up the definition for law to see if it needs to be created by a legislature to be properly titled a law etc...

law
lô
noun

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

A rule of conduct established by authority. Yep, it turns out that an EO is a law.

 

What the hell? What "effort" are you talking about???

I'm asking about not cherry-picking studies, the way the poster I responded to, by hiding relevant facts in order persuade people not to wear masks? 10%, 50%... it's irrelevant. Convincing people to NOT wear masks kills people. My question is what is the purpose of doing this? And also, does it not bother you that all this propaganda WILL lead to somebody dying?

It's amazing! You obviously struggle to come up with an answer. Then you shower us with excuses as to why you won't answer. Then you struggle some more. And when you finally say you're going to answer, you make up your own question.

 

Mask wearing cuts down on oxygenation. Lower oxygenation leads to a host of negative health outcomes including higher rates of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke etc. Oxygenation is vitally important, and anything that reduces it is a bad thing for society, obviously more for some than others. My brother just passed away in June from pulmonary fibrosis. To watch him struggle with a mask in public in his last two years of life was a truly heartbreaking sight.

Additionally, masks make communication much harder by muffling what is being said. Masks significantly inhibit the ability to read body language intentions etc. The notion of young kids in school for the first time dealing with masked school personnel is not a good thing. It undoubtedly has stunted their development to some extent.

For you to pretend like mask-wearing is without consequences is preposterous. Of course it has consequences. In this case, the benefit is not worth the consequences.

You asked me why I would argue against mandated mask-wearing when they save human lives, and my response is a direct answer to that question. I am not sure how you are deriving that I made up my own question.

 

Oh dear God!

So one more who can't come up with an answer. Except you went all over the place to find this absurd excuse. I think you might have saved face if you just stuck with refusing to answer.

No! I did not!!!

 

~ There certainly are in California. There is also the State Medical / Dental Boards.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING absurd about pointing to the decrease in oxygenation that results from wearing a mask. That is a legitimate negative to mask wearing, and for you to not understand this reality shows that you have no clue as to which you speak. That is not to claim that it is suffocating the general populace, but it is a reality that it makes breathing more difficult and less efficient, and this problem is far more acute for some versus others. There is nothing there to argue. If you don't believe that wearing a mask makes breathing less efficient, I suggest you try running with a mask on. The other points about hindering communication and subsequent understanding are equally as valid.

For you to pretend like mask-wearing comes without consequence is preposterous. It is silly.

 

I have no idea. What IS absurd is responding to my question with that nonsense.

 

~ A substantial portion of society still believe a surgical mask will protect from viruses. I suppose it gives them comfort — like a placebo.

" It is what it is .. " ​

 

You clearly "have no idea". On that we agree.

If you doubt the harmful effects of less efficient oxygenation, look at the negative effects of sleep apnea, which is another situation where oxygenation efficiency is diminished for part of the day.

One would have to be a moron to attempt to deny the negative effects of mask wearing in regards to communication efficiency. I sincerely hope you are not trying to do that.