Re-opening Schools in the era of COVID

[gwb-trading]

that is the pc garbage.. researchers throw into all studies which run contrary to the narrative. They do it so they can keep their jobs or get published past the PC barrier. Its standard boilerplate shit.


They go back and find a few observation studies which were invalidated after the 2nd and third waves happened.

So in other words you disagree with what is in the study. If this one section is not correct then by extension the rest of the study must not be valid either.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Your links all go to one study... and it confirms exactly what I wrote above... see the bold. .


The results demonstrate that the apparent exhalation filtration efficiency is significantly lower than the ideal filtration efficiency of the mask material. Nevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%),

Masks don't do shit, so he's going to go back to the only place he can. There's just so much freaking data out there showing how mask mandates are a complete and total failure. But folks like GWB double, triple, quadruple down when shown to be a fraud.

 

[jem]

no... the problem is almost your always your terrible comprehension. and lack of thinking skills.

Its very hard to draw a breathe through something that could 100% filter covid.
(its probably impossible for people sick with covid (not asymptomatic but infectious) to breathe through a mask which would adequately prevent the spread of covid.)

This is how it breaks down.

In the lab you can test for the filtration of the fabric. Let us say
it comes out at x%.
Then you you test for leakage.

Leakage knocks down the actually efficiency of the mask worn by people by a massive percentage. If they really worked people would not be wearing them for more than a few minutes...

For months and months I was telling you... everyone who wears glasses while exercising knows these masks are not blocking shit.

Everyone with a brain understood that...
A clean mask may block the first few droplets... and if covid spread by a one second exposure they might work for 20 minutes.

but covid is spread by sick / syptomatic people over periods of time.

So in other words you disagree with what is in the study. If this one section is not correct then by extension the rest of the study must not be valid either.

 

[Tsing Tao]

no... the problem is almost your always your terrible comprehension. and lack of thinking skills.

Its very hard to draw a breathe through something that could 100% filter covid.
(its probably impossible for people sick with covid (not asymptomatic but infectious) to breathe through a mask which would adequately prevent the spread of covid.)

This is how it breaks down.

In the lab you can test for the filtration of the fabric. Let us say
it comes out at x%.
Then you you test for leakage.

Leakage knocks down the actually efficiency of the mask worn by people by a massive percentage. If they really worked people would not be wearing them for more than a few minutes... Its very hard to draw a breathe through something that could 100% filter covid.

(probably impossible for people sick with covid.)

For months and months I was telling you... everyone who wears glasses while exercising knows these masks are not blocking shit.

Everyone with a brain understood that...
A clean mask may block the first few droplets... and if covid spread by a one second exposure they might work for 20 minutes.

but covid is spread by sick people over periods of time.

GWB will always follow the path of least resistance and limited thinking if the conclusion reinforces his narrative. It is only when something goes against his narrative that he digs into the data - and when he finds the supporting data also doesn't substantiate his narrative, then he launches into a character defamation attack on the author, quoting "Twitter" and "Facebook" as experts in epidemiology.

His bullshit routine is truly a sight to behold.

 

[gwb-trading]

GWB will always follow the path of least resistance and limited thinking if the conclusion reinforces his narrative. It is only when something goes against his narrative that he digs into the data - and when he finds the supporting data also doesn't substantiate his narrative, then he launches into a character defamation attack on the author, quoting "Twitter" and "Facebook" as experts in epidemiology.

His bullshit routine is truly a sight to behold.

So as clearly stated in the study -- masks are 70% to 80% effective at stopping respiratory virus spread.

 

[Tsing Tao]

So as clearly stated in the study -- masks are 70% to 80% effective at stopping respiratory virus spread.

and as Jem clearly stated, the article is bunk - and for the reasons he stated.

If masks were truly 70-80% effective at stopping virus spread there would be vast/stark differences between schools, states, municipalities, whatever that masked vs. those that did not.

There isn't.

But then, you're not one for critical thinking.

 

[gwb-trading]

and as Jem clearly stated, the article is bunk - and for the reasons he stated.

If masks were truly 70-80% effective at stopping virus spread there would be vast/stark differences between schools, states, municipalities, whatever that masked vs. those that did not.

There isn't.

But then, you're not one for critical thinking.

Yes... there is a stark difference in states / schools with mask mandates compared to those without. All of this is reflected in multiple in-depth studies. Non-N95 Mask are generally 85% effective at stopping the transmission of the virus to others; but merely 15% effective at protecting someone from receiving the virus. This is why it is important for everyone to be masked in indoor environment for mitigation to be effective.

Jem state no reasonable reason why this information in the study he posted is bunk -- if this is bunk then by extension the rest of the study is bunk.

 

[jem]

those types of lies qualify a gwb as pyschotic.

this is what the article says... 10 percent efficiency when you consider leakage.



The results demonstrate that the apparent exhalation filtration efficiency is significantly lower than the ideal filtration efficiency of the mask material. Nevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%),

So as clearly stated in the study -- masks are 70% to 80% effective at stopping respiratory virus spread.

 

[gwb-trading]

those types of lies qualify a gwb as pyschotic.

this is what the article says...

The results demonstrate that the apparent exhalation filtration efficiency is significantly lower than the ideal filtration efficiency of the mask material. Nevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%),

So you pick and choose the paragraphs in the study you wish to believe and ignore the rest.

I will note that this is a study performed with dummies involving particle distribution -- it makes no claims that the information actually relates to actual public health outcomes of wearing masks to mitigate respiratory diseases.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Yes... there is a stark difference in states / schools with mask mandates compared to those without. All of this is reflected in multiple in-depth studies. Non-N95 Mask are generally 85% effective at stopping the transmission of the virus to others; but merely 15% effective at protecting someone from receiving the virus. This is why it is important for everyone to be masked in indoor environment for mitigation to be effective.

Jem state no reasonable reason why this information in the study he posted is bunk -- if this is bunk then by extension the rest of the study is bunk.

Please show me some examples of actual data that shows a stark difference between cases/schools...hell, anything. Make sure you do it over a long enough period of time, not some two week thing.