Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Off Topic

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:42 PM
BlackBellamy BlackBellamy is offline
Planar Protector

BlackBellamy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: At the barricades.
Posts: 2,812
Default

That boy needs a better t-shirt:


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
  #2  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:13 PM
Raev Raev is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
My contention is that, if there are unknowns still than the best course of action is to take certain precautions and implement preventative measures, just in case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Apologies if this has already been addressed ... To be generous, I'll call his conclusions "a big stretch."
That is why I find the OP's paper so interesting. He is saying that mask usage likely has substantial long-term negative consequences including immune weakness due to chronically low blood oxygen. Do either of you have any opinion on this part of the paper? Because if the author is correct, the efficacy of masks versus covid virions is simply irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I already provided a link earlier which demonstrated the effectiveness of mask use long before the topic became so contentious, though I have not had the opportunity to doublecheck all of the evidence associated with it.
Just a reminder that your article compared masks to N95s, not masks vs none. It's hard to see this as relevant when virtually no one is wearing an N95 mask.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byue
Also, masks are apolitical. Science says they help.
Science states that masks do not work with a reasonable level of confidence. You can read the Danish study or a review by the British government here. TLDR: 8 randomized trials, 6 negative, 1 irrelevant (the one Ennewi found), and 1 that did find an effect in combination with hand sanitizer. The sad reality is that peer review and the scientific method are no match for billions of dollars in funding, and thus we have to read garbage like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329337/:

Quote:
Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of <300 nm and >300 nm, respectively ...... Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.
The conclusion is obviously completely unwarranted by the actual results.
Last edited by Raev; 04-19-2021 at 05:24 PM..
  #3  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:22 PM
Horza Horza is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 4,879
Default

I appreciate your attempt to sound intelligent but anyone who thinks wearing a mask causes low blood oxygen and chronic immune weakness is a gullible idiot.
  #4  
Old 04-19-2021, 09:32 PM
FatherSioux FatherSioux is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 1,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I appreciate your attempt to sound intelligent but anyone who thinks wearing a mask causes low blood oxygen and chronic immune weakness is a gullible idiot.
AKA: I refuse to believe anything counter to what I originally thought. Actually a mentality that is quite prevalent in the “science” community.
  #5  
Old 04-19-2021, 09:45 PM
Horza Horza is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 4,879
Default

You can't argue masks are too porous to reduce the spread of Covid but also oxygen-depriving death traps and expect people to take you seriously.
  #6  
Old 04-19-2021, 10:05 PM
Raev Raev is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You can't argue masks are too porous to reduce the spread of Covid but also oxygen-depriving death traps and expect people to take you seriously.
Why is this inconsistent at all? Masks reduce the quantity of air you can move around your face but, because they are porous relative to aerosol droplets, barely change the quality.

Fortunately, SCIENCE is here to answer these questions. Surgeons wearing masks over 4 hours saw their blood oxygenation drop from 97% to 96% and their pulse rates rise 5 bpm. Obviously no one is going to drop dead just because they put a mask on, but it's entirely reasonable to think this will cause chronic stress.
Last edited by Raev; 04-19-2021 at 10:07 PM..
  #7  
Old 04-19-2021, 10:09 PM
Byue Byue is offline
Planar Protector

Byue's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,180
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You can't argue masks are too porous to reduce the spread of Covid but also oxygen-depriving death traps and expect people to take you seriously.
this is pretty much on point.
__________________
I don't even know that I don't know.
  #8  
Old 04-19-2021, 09:48 PM
HalflingSpergand HalflingSpergand is offline
Planar Protector

HalflingSpergand's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,294
Default

We want it so bad were going to prove it with science!
Science is broken, it didn't even exist
  #9  
Old 04-19-2021, 10:06 PM
Jibartik Jibartik is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 16,899
Default

buy an n95 mask you gimps
  #10  
Old 04-19-2021, 10:50 PM
HalflingSpergand HalflingSpergand is offline
Planar Protector

HalflingSpergand's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,294
Default

Its designed to be argued both ways
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.