MSNBC medical contributor tells Americans to start wearing masks again after uptick in COVID hospita

Then don’t fly. Vaccination or masks don’t prevent passengers from spreading the virus.

 

This is how much of a farcical game this mask crap is. I go to my GP and it's a mask-up policy. So I arrived for my early appointment and one of the practicing GPs entered without a mask and muttered, "Oh, that's right, I don't have a mask, better go put one on". On my next visit, another early appointment I arrive at the surgery, one staff member with a mask on, 3 other staff members, and a GP without one. I asked if we had stopped with the mask nonsense, "No, no we still have to wear masks here". Seriously, only when you HAVE TO! (IN THE PRESENCE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC)?
Yet when I see my specialist, it's no mask, no bullshit distancing. A lot of inconsistencies among health professionals just demonstrates a couple of things, most of them have woken to the bullshit and most know there is no point to wearing them.

 

Rubbish! Not all research is funded by big Pharma an awful lot I funded by universities and institutions. Take CSIRO for example

 

No but they do “cut the odds” of you getting COVID, long COVID or just the cobblywobbles

 

Who cares if you are below the age of 70, healthy, and have none of the CDC listed preconditions. You are at less risk from covid than influenza.

 

And masks do not protect against influenza too?

 

Really? We're not focusing on the CSIRO, we're focusing on drug companies such as Pfizer who will fund their own studies to paint a wonderful picture of illusion for the gullible.

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156458/

When big companies fund academic research, the truth often comes last
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes.html

 

Pity you didn’t read the rest of the research

So, that actually indicates that peer review is working. But it is a given that studies funded by big Pharma are biased which is why good journals insist that funding is declared. It is also one of the first thing any health care professionals check in relation to research. Incidents like thalidomide and Vioxx have taught us that. But there are still independent researchers performing independent research. Look at the HPV vaccine - an Aussie success story
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/news/australian-success-story-hpv-vaccine/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089001/

 

Aerosol particles pass right through surgical masks. N95 masks stop aerosol particles if they are glued to your face.

 

Got research to prove that?

 

It's not needed when you read the conclusions or end discussions.

Don't you want to point this out also?

WOW! So what, the first link demonstrates what in our argument, that the TGA approved Gardasil?
And the second link is for...?

You approached my statement and claim about how research is biased on the research, and I proved it. Then you retaliate with HPV vaccines, Whoopdid do! Got to do much better than that.

 

Yeh! Critiquing research is taught at uni and take it from someone who has taught this it does NOT rely on just reading the abstract and or conclusion of a paper. And you “proved” nothing in fact your paper in stating that many research papers funded by Pharma are not published backs ergo my contention that Pharma does not do all the research on pharmaceuticals was validated

 

Who do you think fund the TGA???

 

I simplify my time by doing it this way, the way I do it allows me to fit more into my day. Also, highlighting and getting to the point is key, is it not?

 

In the context of this argument, Big Pharma and who funds their smaller subsidiaries, the TGA is by the government, which is then funded by taxpayer dollars and during the COVID silly season is and was funded by Big Pharma to spruik their garbage as being, wait for it... "SAFE & EFFECTIVE!"

 

There is no research which shows that masks stop aerosol particles. N95 respirators do but only if glued to the face.

If you have any scientific study proving that masks work against aerosols please post it.

 

You also failed to address the following I posted previously. Oh look, it's from the Uni of Sydney, goodness me.

 

Aaaaaand you know this how? Meanwhile

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10183070/
And THIS is a critique of the research published in Cochrane

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/ne...he-risk-of-spreading-covid--despite-a-review-

 

You are a fountain of never ending misinformation. Some healthy children have died from contracting covid. The chances of dying from covid is substantially lower for children. During the pandemic, covid-19 deaths were highest in infants and lowest in children aged 5-9 years. Healthy infants were particularly vulnerable due to an immature immune system. Healthy children die from the complications of pneumonia. For you to say healthy children are at no risk is absolutely false.

As far as children dying from myocarditis after the vaccine, this statement is absolutely untrue. The vaccine has been known to cause mild myocarditis in an extremely small number of children. The side-effects of having the virus itself are much worse than any vaccine induced side-effects. In fact, children are more at risk of myocarditis after multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a serious illness from COVID-19 infection.

Nothing absolutely prevents infection. Vaccines lessen severity of symptoms. Masks reduce the number of virus particles in the air.

It is criminal to assert that healthy children can’t possibly die from covid.

A ‘healthy’ elderly person, due to their age, does not have an optimally functioning immune system which is why age alone makes elderly people much more vulnerable to developing sever covid. Age is one factor that puts people at higher risk for having severe illness from covid — as in infants and the elderly. So again, you are posting misinformation.

The virus usually is combined in with larger droplets from the airway. These larger droplets don’t go through masks readily and are putting any barrier between the nose and mouth reduces the load of viral particles that get released into the air. If there were two rooms full of people with covid and one room had people wearing properly fitted masks and in the other room there were no masks, the chances of catching covid by going into the room of maskless people is much greater. Where exactly did you get the information from? The school of instagram? You don’t need to glue a N95 mask to your face for it to work effectively. Posting that masks are ineffective is misinformation — it depends on what kind of mask and whether it’s worn properly.

Masks weren’t meant to be the sole way of lessening the transmission of covid — well-ventilated rooms and social distancing were important as well.

Since you don’t seem to possess anything but misinformation one should really ignore what you are claiming.

 

So what? No one ever thought the vaccine would provide 100% protection.

When you have a bunch of 20-40 jackasses almost going out of their way to get covid, they keep the virus circulating and people avoiding "places with faces"--restaurants, bars, clubs, malls, etc. Yes, it hurts the economy.

They have a high vaccination rate.

It hurts business to have a lot of covid circulating.

Except the healthy people give it to unhealthy people.

 

Actually what is being calculated is the impact of “long COVID”. Because this is taking young usually fit people out of the wage earner group for months at a time it is impacting the economies of countries.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/it-...ia-at-least-5-7b-a-year-20230404-p5cy3z.html#

 

Masks reduce the number of virus particles which reduces the number of individuals becoming infected. You seem to be suggesting that because masks don’t prevent infection they are useless. Does this go for things like birth control pills, they aren’t 100 percent effective at preventing pregnancy, so are birth control pills are therefore useless. One can also use something like birth control pills to discuss efficacy — which is the most effective birth control — withdrawal, condoms, or pills? Because none of these methods are 100 percent effective, should they be abandoned? Most people wishing to prevent pregnancy go for the most effective — pills. They all provide some amount of protection though. Same with masks — cloth, surgical, N95, all provide some protection but because they don’t provide 100 percent protection, should they be abandoned? No, one should use the most effective masks.

Any mask will provide some protection, the type of mask is important. Aerosol concentrations decrease with distance from the source which is why social distancing is important. Another factor is if a person is coughing or sneezing rather than just breathing. With forceful coughing and sneezing, greater amount of aerosols can pass through the face mask and travel further.

Does every droplet of air expelled from an infected person contain the virus and do droplets that get through a mask contain enough of a viral load to infect others? The actual viral load necessary to cause infection isn’t actually known. When people are speaking, coughing and sneezing, what happens to the droplets depends on the environment one is in - humidity, temperature, air turbulence, ventilation, what people are doing are all important. Size and velocity of particles is also important. Even the loudness that one speak has an effect on aerosol distribution.

What is important with the covid virus is to reduce transmission for the infected individual and to provide physical distance. Masking has been shown to be effective at reducing the spread of infection especially with social distancing. Surgical masks are not designed to filter out small airborne infectious particles. They are designed to prevent droplets from an infectious person coming in contact with the mucous membranes of the person wearing a mask. N95 ‘respirators’ are designed to protect the wearer of airborne infectious aerosols which is why they are better.

Cloth masks work as a physical barrier and as electrostatic filters. Cotton, natural silk, and chiffon have been noted to provide good protection with a tight weave fabrics having better protection. Increasing the number of layers also improves mask performance. These masks should fit close to the face because leakage around masks diminishes efficiency. However, N95 masks are better, but cloth masks can be useful when N95 masks are not available.

To say masks are useless is highly erroneous and steeped in ignorance. If universal usage of face masks being worn properly had occurred, covid spread would have been slowed down radically. If anything the pandemic has shown that N95 masks are superior and therefore, any government in the future should have enough of these masks available to keep the virus at lower levels to prevent lockdowns. But, alas there will always be idiots who say masks are always useless and therefore will not wear them which serves to spread the virus. The usefulness of masks depends on the type of masks and wearing them properly.

If one stays away from the University of TicToc and Instagram, one might actually come across tons of research that indicates that masking during the pandemic was useful.

 

Interesting research paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10243888/

 

That's how the vaccines were presented. Everyone initially thought they were as effective as polio or small pox.

And again healthy people are at minimal risk from Covid. Most people who become infected don't even know it.

It hurts business to be able to open there doors.

Those most at risk are over the age of 70 with the CDC preconditions. They and those around them must take precautions.

 

Masks don't stop aerosol particles. They do not protect or prevent.