Massive Danish study: Mask do little against covid

[Andylusion]

Smoke a cigarette, exhale the smoke through your mask and watch how the smoke travels.

The guy at my work smokes. I can smell the evidence of his smoking, an hour later, from 3 benches away.

We are all required to wear masks at all times at work.

I don't know how any idiot could think that masks do anything.

 

[Quasar44]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

Might be that the virus is thousands of times smaller than the mask pours?
What do I know lol

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah lets panic and shut everything down with a death rate of .02%.

And if by .02% you mean 3% then you wouldn't be the worthless lying scum POS you are!

Where are you getting your math from ?

United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

CLOSED CASES
7,423,250
Cases which had an outcome:

7,166,996 (97%)
Recovered / Discharged

256,254 (3%)
Deaths

 

[Mindful]

 

[edthecynic]

Taiwan is testing no-one by the look of it.

Taiwan tests per million population: 4,472

 

[Aletheia4u]

The mask are for us to submit while they are behind us putting their thumbs up chutes.

 

[TheParser]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

What depressing news to wake up to.

One day we're told that masks are useless (besides being uncomfortable).

The next day we're told that wearing a mask can reduce the infection rate.

The "experts" themselves do not agree.

It is all so depressing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Post the link...!

Even the CDC shows that 85% of those infected with covid were wearing masks... I dont know where you pulled that shitty number from, but it looks like it was your ass.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

So your "knowledge" of the matter overrules the Danish medical study?
Why does that sound like bullshit?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Gee I failed to find that elusive 87% you brought up,

That's because it came from the CDC, and not from some fake foreign Right-wing source.
The CDC reported that of the 160 people who had tested negative, conversely, a total of 88.7% said they had worn a mask either "always" (74.2%) or "often" (14.5%).
So I was wrong, masks weren't 87% effective, they were 88.7% effective.
BTW the CDC study was cited in your FAKE STUDY, though typically dishonestly as ALL Right-wing sources do.

You still haven't showed where it is, I looked around for it.

Why can't you post the link to it, is it so hard for you to do?

Meanwhile you claim fake news, but post zero evidence for it, that doesn't impress anyone.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Might be that the virus is thousands of times smaller than the mask pours [sic]?

Not quite that extreme.

Based on my microscopic examination of an N95 mask, the gaps are typically around 50 microns. That's a rough number, as it is rather uneven.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus supposedly ranges from 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. So at the smallest end of that scale, it's roughly 1⁄1000 the size of the gaps in the mask. At the other end, about 1⁄250 the size.

It's likely most accurate to say that the virus is hundreds of times smaller, rather than thousands.

Of course, one thing that I have not done, and probably should, is to examine one of the cheaper, more common masks under my microscope. The gaps in it are probably bigger than those in the N95 mask that I did examine, and perhaps by enough to justify your claim of the virus being thousands of times smaller.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Might be that the virus is thousands of times smaller than the mask pours [sic]?

Not quite that extreme.

Based on my microscopic examination of an N95 mask, the gaps are typically around 50 microns. That's a rough number, as it is rather uneven.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus supposedly ranges from 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. So at the smallest end of that scale, it's roughly 1⁄1000 the size of the gaps in the mask. At the other end, about 1⁄250 the size.

It's likely most accurate to say that the virus is hundreds of times smaller, rather than thousands.

Of course, one thing that I have not done, and probably should, is to examine one of the cheaper, more common masks under my microscope. The gaps in it are probably bigger than those in the N95 mask that I did examine, and perhaps by enough to justify your claim of the virus being thousands of times smaller.

View attachment 418377

If you did that to a cloth mask or even a hospital grade mask the weave would be so wide that you could not see it when you zoomed down to the viruses size level.. Its like stopping a golfball with a mesh of 2' x 2'.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you did that to a cloth mask or even a hospital grade mask the weave would be so wide that you could not see it when you zoomed down to the viruses size level.. Its like stopping a basket ball with a mesh of 2' x 2'.

“Zoomed down to the virus level” doesn't even happen with a light-based microscope.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you did that to a cloth mask or even a hospital grade mask the weave would be so wide that you could not see it when you zoomed down to the viruses size level.. Its like stopping a basket ball with a mesh of 2' x 2'.

“Zoomed down to the virus level” doesn't even happen with a light-based microscope.

I get it... I was attempting to use analogy to explain it in layman's terms.

 

[Godboy]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

But have they studied the effects on people who are not Giant Danes?

Are you suggesting that they are racially superior? Im sure you will try to deny it, but that is what you just did.

 

[Godboy]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Gee I failed to find that elusive 87% you brought up,

That's because it came from the CDC, and not from some fake foreign Right-wing source.
The CDC reported that of the 160 people who had tested negative, conversely, a total of 88.7% said they had worn a mask either "always" (74.2%) or "often" (14.5%).
So I was wrong, masks weren't 87% effective, they were 88.7% effective.
BTW the CDC study was cited in your FAKE STUDY, though typically dishonestly as ALL Right-wing sources do.

Only a 160 people? Pfff, get the fuck out of here.

 

[Unkotare]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

But have they studied the effects on people who are not Giant Danes?

Are you suggesting that they are racially superior? Im sure you will try to deny it, but that is what you just did.

...wow

You must be fun at parties.

 

[Godboy]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

But have they studied the effects on people who are not Giant Danes?

Are you suggesting that they are racially superior? Im sure you will try to deny it, but that is what you just did.

...wow

You must be fun at parties.

Dont try weaseling you're way out of your comment now.

 

[Unkotare]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

But have they studied the effects on people who are not Giant Danes?

Are you suggesting that they are racially superior? Im sure you will try to deny it, but that is what you just did.

...wow

You must be fun at parties.

Dont try weaseling you're way out of your comment now.

Ok, Buzz.

 

[Circe]

But have they studied the effects on people who are not Giant Danes?

Or minks........apparently they are having a lot of trouble with COVID and their mink industry.
Somehow I don't find the Danes very interesting in this calamity.