Again. To what end? This wasn't the first time masks have been used to address global pandemic. It wasn't new - not here not globally.
Covid cold
- Thread starter preacher_dawg
- Start date
- Status
Masks didn’t stop spread- data proved that. You shamed, bullied, and segregated people who saw through the mask scam and refused them- and you even still continue to do that. You weren’t saving anyone- you were playing dress up and virtue signaling. You were just enjoying the power trip and miss the feeling. It was nothing more than a failed psyop you fell for hook, line, and sinker. It’s time you get over it.
If it didn't stop the spread, it showed that masks weren't effective at all from infecting a random person. I lived through the mask Nazi era here in New York state. Almost every normal New Yorker outside of New York City views it as a useless worthless period of time in the state where people like yourself had hissy fits if your face wasn't covered and it didn't accomplish anything.
You and your science. Who knows medicine better, doctors with world renowned expertise in epidemiology or politicians? What a rube.***
seriously? What a misspent youth. My spitting distance and accuracy is one of my few skills
Hear me out though. My gas mileage started dropping after I took my second booster. Thoughts?***
This. I keep thinking man I’ve really done down hill since Covid. But it also coincided with me turning 40.
Dont be like pdh. That guy is an emotional wreck that lives off of hot takes and vibes.
I have not had a hissy fit over masks. I spent 2 years actively skeptical of their effectiveness for multiple reasons- lack of universal use, lack of correct use, unsuitable material, general ineffectiveness.
Hell, people driving in cars with masks has always elicited an eye roll from me.
I have not thrown a hissy fit in this thread. I have not thrown a hissy fit over masks.
You lead a congregation- man the 17 up and be a leader.
You of all people should understand how worthless absolutes typically are in life, and how much in life is typically a shade of gray. Your initial claim was an absolute. It was an extreme claim.
Nuance exists- accept it.
If stopping the spread, not just reducing the risk, is the bar you had to clear to just be a considerate person and do one thing that possibly could save someone else's life, then yeah, you are a complete dick. Data absolutely did show it reduced transmission. Not stopped. But reduced, yes. Even if it did come out later that it had no effect, you'd still be the person who when asked to try something that might save lives, but made you slightly uncomfortable, chose a little more comfort.
Last edited:
Wearing a mask because it might help reduce transmission of a virus isn't Nazi stuff. I'd like to say I'm shocked a preacher felt that way about masking in an attempt to help others, but I'm not.
My last comment on this. Listen to the epidemiologists. And your primary care doctor. And stop "researching" medical advice online.
I watched two neighbors get to the brink of just completely breaking. I can't imagine the trauma y'all had to and still deal with. I appreciate all y'all did and am eternally thankful for people like you.
Apologies. I lumped you in unnecessarily. With that being said, the maskers were insane in that era and everyone around here it was a horrible time to live in NY state, and it was utterly worthless. Even though you have the same beliefs about masks as they do, I would hope you would not be as mask crazy as they were. Apologies again.
I’ve been sick more in the last 14 months than in the previous 10 years. These colds that last forever suck. The most recent one had me on the nebulizer with albuterol a couple of times a day. I was at the point of going back to the doctor for the third time, most likely with a mild pneumonia, when I finally turned the corner.
Just surprised comments are still open. What a swell party this is!
The “reduced transmission” claim you’re leaning on got walked back years ago. Look up the DANMASK and Cochrane Review from 2023- Analyzed like 80 randomized controlled trials on masks concluding that wearing masks in the community makes little/no difference to flu like or COVID like illnesses. Now that the actual real data is out and proves you wrong, you’re still out here trying to guilt trip people who were right from the start. You want to turn a failed policy into a character test and then pretend the people who failed your test are the inconsiderate dicks. That’s not virtue. That’s a pathological need to be the good guy, even when the facts prove you weren’t. They proved the opposite. You didn’t save any lives. All that forced compliance theater was never about saving anyone- it was about control, and you were and still are nothing more than an eager foot soldier.
The end game is already here- and it worked. They proved they could get hundreds of millions of people to cover their faces on command for years. They proved they could make compliance a moral virtue and dissent a moral crime. They proved they could divide families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers over a policy that didn’t even work. They proved they could train entire populations to accept arbitrary rules, shame, segregation, and surveillance “for safety”. They proved they could normalize the idea that governments and corporations can override your bodily autonomy and basic freedoms whenever they declare an “emergency”. They just needed to see how far they could push ordinary people before more resistance kicked in. And the answer was- pretty damn far. The mask wasn’t the end game, rather it was the proof of concept. Fear + media + social pressure + institutional authority = mass compliance, even when the intervention is useless. That’s the end game- and you helped run the experiment by shaming anyone who didn’t play along. You’re living in the end game and you still don’t see it- That’s the saddest part.
Not true.
Go to the "Authors Conclusion" section and read. You'll then understand why the Cochrane Review editor said that the takeaway that the study proves masks don't work "is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."
You were scammed by clickbait headlines and didn't pay attention to what Cochrane and study published.
At the end of the day, at the time, we had nerd beta people in charge during the switch of our leadership. It was planned and executed with at least a year of planning. It was executed with the Jan 6 scam, same institution.
Fair enough. I think we will just have to agree that I (and many) didn't view a mask as a hindrance to personal autonomy or freedom. You (and many) did. We're different it's fine.
Still struggling to see where the end game is any different for me if I'm living it it. I didn't lose any relationships. My "no mask" loved ones are still loved. There was plenty of push back to minor changes (masks) and major (lockdown/vaccine). If anything, I think that "they" proved that you can't get modern society to do much of anything in lock-step. Mass compliance in the USA right now? We can't even have a Super Bowl halftime show not be divisive.
Now if you want to argue that "they" wanted to prove they could get a society to tear itself apart I can buy that. Global pandemic (stress) + misinfo here and there (confusion) + identity politics (tribes) = fight. But again, I need to know what "they" want out of chaos if it's not just wanting to watch the world burn.
It's embarrassing to cite one single study to make your biased case about masks. As with everything, it became a political issue. So you'll die on the hill of whatever side you side with and only see data that depends that side. Embarrassing.
This study refers to FORTY SEVEN studies that shows that masks reduced the spread of COVID. But please cling to your ONE study that defends your bias. Academically you're embarrassing yourself.
Be objective. Take no sides. Look at the mountain of data and research and let it speak for itself. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Ever.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
While you're at it, start understanding cognitive biases. It ruins your perspectives on things. Social media and politics are littered with these and use them to their advantage. Be aware.
thedecisionlab.com
This study refers to FORTY SEVEN studies that shows that masks reduced the spread of COVID. But please cling to your ONE study that defends your bias. Academically you're embarrassing yourself.
Be objective. Take no sides. Look at the mountain of data and research and let it speak for itself. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Ever.
Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review - PMC
This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
While you're at it, start understanding cognitive biases. It ruins your perspectives on things. Social media and politics are littered with these and use them to their advantage. Be aware.
List of Cognitive Biases and Heuristics - The Decision Lab
Below is a list of the most important cognitive biases and heuristics in the field of behavioural science, and why they matter.
thedecisionlab.com
Unpacking Cochrane’s Update on Masks and COVID-19 - PMC
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It is a little long and from the NIH, which I’m guessing you think was part of the big bad bogeyman control, so probably pointless to even expect you to read it.
You’ve made my point, though. Even if they didn’t work at all, you didn’t know that at that time. When health experts asked us to try something to slow down a virus that had Samaritan’s Purse setting up field hospitals in Jackson, an alarming (although 6 years later it doesn’t surprise me) number of Americans chose their own personal comfort. You can be right (you aren’t) and still be a morally deficient and selfish prick at the same time.
Did you read the actual review instead of cherry picking the political damage control statement? The editor’s statement you linked to was a PR cleanup after the review got weaponized by both sides. They were mad that people on the right were saying Cochrane proves masks don’t work and people on the left were saying it insinuates that masks work ect. So the editor said, don’t overinterpret it. But notice what they didn’t say. They didn’t say “we were wrong, masks clearly work.” They didn’t retract the conclusion. They just said don’t exaggerate either way- And you’re doing exactly what they warned against- pretending the review supports your side when it doesn’t. So here’s the actual data that still stands- The Cochrane Review itself (the full 78 RCTs, 276,917 participants) it concluded:Not true.
Go to the "Authors Conclusion" section and read. You'll then understand why the Cochrane Review editor said that the takeaway that the study proves masks don't work "is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."
You were scammed by clickbait headlines and didn't pay attention to what Cochrane and study published.
“Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared with not wearing masks… The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”
So there review’s actual conclusion that still says the same thing- Masks in the community did little or nothing.
You fell for the psyop. You enforced the psyop. And you’re still defending the psyop. That’s not virtue- that’s being a jerk that is a detriment to society.
Exactly!
I have long been confused how the narrative that 'they trained all of us to comply and give up body autonomy' because...that didnt happen. Like it simply didnt happen. Countless people aggressively pushed back and refused. Entire states proudly declared non-compliance.
Reality doesnt support the conspiracy claim that covid policies showed we could all be trained to give up rights or trained to comply.
As for @bulldoghair 's claim that the end game was to prove they could divide families and friends...well first off, that is the opposite of the other claim. And secondly, there was no need to prove that since it was already proven. There are a bunch of examples that already proved this, from the current century even.
Its crazy to even sum up what the 'end game' is.
The end game is-
- to prove compliance
- to prove division
- to prove compliance could be a moral virtue
- to prove people would give up 'rights'
- to prove an 'emergency' is acceptable justification for taking rights
When an end game is that much and that wide ranging...it isnt meaningful.
This is just another excellent example of a conspiracy- since nothing can be proven to not be the end goal, everything can be the end goal. And as things are proven to not be the end goal, the conspiracist can just continue to pivot to the claims that havent yet been disproven. It is a never ending game of pivot.
One study?? The Cochrane Review literally analyzed 78 randomized controlled trials, which is the highest level of evidence we have, and by which was pooled together by the most rigorous review group on the planet- and again, concluded masks “probably makes little or no difference” to community-level transmission of flu like or COVID like illness. That’s not “one study” brother.It's embarrassing to cite one single study to make your biased case about masks. As with everything, it became a political issue. So you'll die on the hill of whatever side you side with and only see data that depends that side. Embarrassing.
This study refers to FORTY SEVEN studies that shows that masks reduced the spread of COVID. But please cling to your ONE study that defends your bias. Academically you're embarrassing yourself.
Be objective. Take no sides. Look at the mountain of data and research and let it speak for itself. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Ever.
Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review - PMC
This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare ...
While you're at it, start understanding cognitive biases. It ruins your perspectives on things. Social media and politics are littered with these and use them to their advantage. Be aware.
List of Cognitive Biases and Heuristics - The Decision Lab
Below is a list of the most important cognitive biases and heuristics in the field of behavioural science, and why they matter.
Your 47 study review, which is less than half btw, is a rapid systematic review- meaning quicker, less rigorous, and heavy on observational data which is notoriously biased. Not to mention it was published early in the pandemic when the evidence base was still thin. It’s not wrong to cite it, but pretending it outweighs Cochrane, which is the gold standard for evidence synthesis, is purposely dishonest and ridiculous to be honest. Again also look at the DANMASK-19 RCT’s. They concluded the same thing. Also there are studies with world comparisons such as Sweden vs. masked countries, masked vs. unmasked ect- Which all show no meaningful divergence in curves. You are the one that is refusing to look at the actual full mountain of data, and the best data we have to date. And you’re the one that is still defending a policy that didn’t deliver, while shaming people who questioned it and were proven to be right. You’re purposely being dishonest and the evil part is you know it.
You aren't being consistent. You state that Cochrane conclusion is "that wearing masks in the community makes little/no difference to flu like or COVID like illnesses.". You're using the study to support the take that they don't work, "your side is wrong", etc. I am telling you that's not the ultimate conclusion of the study. Read the AUTHOR'S CONCLUSION (Implications for Practice, Implications for Research). Their takeaway is that are research gaps and we need more. The body of science reviewed doesn't conclude they work/dont work.
Yet here you are making cherry picked statements from the author's summary that masks do little or nothing yet ignore the same author's ultimate conclusions of their own study - that is, we need more. Sure you didn't fall for another psyop?
Hell you called yourself out right there. I've made zero suggestion/insinuation that this study supports that masks work - none. I'm saying that you ran with it to support they don't to win some sort of "my side vs your side" argument which clearly isn't authors' own conclusion.
You admit the data eventually showed masks didn’t meaningfully stop spread- but you still think the rest of us were selfish for not playing along before we knew that for sure? Some of us did know or at least heavily suspected- because all you had to do was look at prior flu studies, aerosol science, and damn basic virology- instead of swallowing every press conference. Have some common sense brother. What you’re doing here is not virtuous. It’s actually retroactive moral blackmail. You’re basically saying “You should have obeyed the experts even when they were wrong, because reasons.”Unpacking Cochrane’s Update on Masks and COVID-19 - PMC
It is a little long and from the NIH, which I’m guessing you think was part of the big bad bogeyman control, so probably pointless to even expect you to read it.
You’ve made my point, though. Even if they didn’t work at all, you didn’t know that at that time. When health experts asked us to try something to slow down a virus that had Samaritan’s Purse setting up field hospitals in Jackson, an alarming (although 6 years later it doesn’t surprise me) number of Americans chose their own personal comfort. You can be right (you aren’t) and still be a morally deficient and selfish prick at the same time.
GTFO.
And this is their conclusion after looking at all of it. Here is the actual quote verbatim for you:
“Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared with not wearing masks.”
That is not a neutral “we don’t know.” They looked at the best data we have and it doesn’t show a benefit for masks. Period. That’s it. You say “I never claimed the study shows masks work.” Great. So then why are you still defending the policy that forced them on everyone?
Not at all what I said. Since you obviously didn't read the link, here is the conclusion statement:
The science of masking and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated. Observational studies present valuable data that warrant consideration in informing policy with a full understanding of the utility of mask use in a variety of settings. The Cochrane review did not include a large body of evidence, and that resulted in a biased conclusion. If all types of studies are considered, it is clear that well-fitting, properly used masks do have a measurable and significant effect on reducing transmission when properly worn by the vast majority of the population during times of high community transmission.3 Although the data in the two new studies included in the Cochrane update on masks are accurate, modeling studies correctly predict the small effect sizes that those studies observed; furthermore, the models predict that the effect size would be much larger with better masks more widely and correctly used. Taken together, these and other studies strongly indicate that masking is an effective intervention to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (source control) and should be considered to protect those most vulnerable from severe COVID-19 illness (wearer protection) as a general nonpharmaceutical intervention during times of high transmission.
The reasons were to do things like protect people with cancer and weakened immune systems. I will never get over the fact that people like you chose some wild *** theory about a government control experiment and your own personal comfort over that.
You are missing the forest for the trees here looking for a study or review of studies that's going to provide a nice neat conclusion for gotcha moments.
If we are bringing up common sense, it's this: put an object between two people or something that resists the projection of air between them, and it's reasonable to expect that disease transmission is reduced. Slow a pandemic? Maybe. Probably not. Stop pandemic? Not a chance.
So now we're are left with "well what is the object used that could do some good on a small scale?" In this case it's a 4 gram piece of fabric. I view it as an easy no risk way to possibly prevent infecting someone in my general area. You view it as an attack on your autonomy and potential societal control. I'm not shaming you. I'm just repeating your take.
If we do get the science one day that says "all was for naught, mask do zero" and the result of that is I'm now allowed to walk down patient care halls during flu season without a mask to save costs, then I'll look back on all those times I wore a face diaper like this: "oh well. No meaningful harm done. Moving on".
If we are being honest though, we are never getting a study that proves that even if it were true. It would still allude to at least the possibility that they help at a small scale. And you'll see the people in healthcare tasked with managing and mitigating disease to continue to spend the money on them. Why? Bc it's easy and can help.
Be sure to negate wearing a mask does to change human behavior to:
- distance from others
- wash hands more often
- self assess if you are ill before going in public
- be aware there is personal responsibility for others in a PANDEMIC
You also know that there are unmasked asymptomatic AND symptomatic people that spread respiratory viruses like wildfire. (this is where the term "going viral" comes from homeboy, go look at the case studies on the Spanish flu. Where they shot people on site walking into SF without a mask.) Track that along with the mask wearing and get back to me... There is no single controlled study that you can hang your hat on unless you want to sound like an enraged psycho American "freedom fighter."
The internet all of a sudden has thousands of amateur epidemiologists. Consider all facts before zeroing in on the mask itself. And listen to several epidemiologists on their methods. Listen, do not talk.
That statement is not found in their conclusion. You are cherry picking and ignoring what the authors', who understand the data and implications of observations better than you or I do, say it means. Here is their laymen's conclusion. No firm conclusions. Uncertainty present. Need for more.
- Status