[James]

Looks like you feel the need to be rude, combative and confrontational with people who disagree with you over a topic (mask effectiveness, existence of God). That’s a shame. Let me know when you get bored with that and maybe we can have an interesting discussion. I sincerely hope you find peace and with it, the ability to be more charitable towards those whose opinions dissent from your own.

• This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  James.
• This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  James.

[Jabberwock]

If citations are not good for you, maybe a picture will do?

nature.com

Fig. 1: Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infection. | Nature Medicine

Fig. 1: Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infection. | Nature Medicine

[John]

You just proved my point. Go down the list and the data proves that there is no effect between masks and not having masks. They did an excellent job of skewing the data to make it look like masks worked for the Corona virus by only having three positive samples and by these specific samples do not show it after the masks or were there–this is data manipulation. I think a valid question is why are they testing so many samples without virus in them? The fact that this data disputes the other virus data–e.g., influenza in concerning. Would this study have come across my desk I would have me interrogating these people to get to the bottom of it their discrepancies.

In conclusion, the data matches every other study that I’ve found–masks don’t work for viruses–their influenza data proves it. They are trying to make it look like it works, but the details indicate they have a motive that is driving them.

[Jabberwock]

No, I have not proven your point, I have shown the exact problem with your assessment of evidence.

If had actually even skimmed the article, you would know why the composition of samples was that way. And yes, different means work differently for different viruses. What is obvious that you have problems with accepting evidence that goes contrary to your beliefs: you do not like the results, so you go attacking their integrity, accusing them of ‘skewing’ the results. What was it: ‘common practice of attacking credibility and credentials’? Yes that is your common practice, all right.

At least have the honesty and admit that it is not ‘atheists do not provide any evidence’, but ‘I reject atheists’ evidence, because I do not like it’.

• This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  Jabberwock.

[James]

I just think this is intentional baiting.

[John]

Not at all–it’s making a point about evidence. Sorry you don’t recognize that….

[James]

John, whatever it is that fuels the seeming anger and intolerance that you feel towards those who disagree with you on certain topics (such that you feel the need to go on the internet to troll, bait and say negative things about those who disagree with you), I sincerely hope you find peace in such a way that you can begin to manage disagreement with others in a more substantiative way. When you can, I think you will find yourself having more substantive discussions and those around you will be more open to discussing your ideas.

[John]

I don’t need to get into their details. Why did they test only three positives for Coronavirus? Why do masks work for coronavirus but not influenza? They are both viruses. There’s a motive…

[Jabberwock]

So you cannot be bothered to check WHY there are only three cases of a corona virus and why there are differences between the viruses, but you feel entitled to make conclusions (based on your ignorance) concerning their integrity.

Great, John! Keep digging.

[John]

Not my job. I just know if some ‘scientists’ presented this data in one of my meetings to get approval to publish it, they’d be laughed out of the room. You see, all the hard work goes into the set-up–the testing protocol, the analytics, sampling and analysis. There is no way someone would only test three positive coronavirus samples, then call it complete to make a bold claim. No way….

You dig into their write-up, It’s not worth my time and effort.

[Jabberwock]

Yes, it is very clear that it is not your job.

[jayceeii]

@Jabberwock

The study was small because the funding was poor, and the study was late because it took a pandemic to raise alarms. Fully rational people would have established these things long before a pandemic, or at least after the first major one, as humanity has had several.

[Jabberwock]

jayceeii, apparently you have not read the article either. The study was neither small nor late, your comment is simply misleading.

[jayceeii]

I’d expect n’s in the hundreds or thousands, not tens. I’d expect all this should have been researched and known before the pandemic struck.

[Jabberwock]

Well, they started with over two thousand prescreened patients… and the actual data gathering was done before 2016.

[jayceeii]

I mean the research should have been done decades ago, but people could not accept the threat of viruses as significant despite the pandemics seen in the past. I studied virology in the 1980s. Why didn’t they know this then? The attention and research dollars weren’t there. Humanity lacks a unitary focus and right priorities that fully rational ones possess.

It’s still too small a study when the n of interest is in the tens (or less). John could not object as he has done. They do what they can with those small numbers, but their case could be even stronger than their data is showing. 3363 were screened, but only 246 were enrolled. Only 20% were willing to provide a sample of both types, showing how difficult it can be to get cooperation from humans for studies which can benefit the main.

In the upper left-hand corner of this table might be where John saw the number 3, and he has a point, 3 is a small number:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2/tables/2

nature.com

Table 1b Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus frequency of detection and viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infection

Table 1b Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus frequency of detection and viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infection

[jayceeii]

Thanks for the article, @Jabberwock. Like most scientific papers it is well-reasoned and persuasive. I’m especially interested in emphasizing the ill persons wearing masks, as the article says, “Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to prevent onward transmission (source control).” But I’d have to say too humanity as a whole seems remiss, that it took COVID before such vital research could find funding.

[John]

The key word in that statement is “some.” The word some means that ‘some do not.’ All government employees and agencies were included in the ‘some.’ I know of no independent analysts who were though.

[jayceeii]

Some can be right. One can be right. Most can be wrong. All can be wrong.

[John]

Exactly my point. Most can be wrong and most can be right too.

[jayceeii]

No, it isn’t your point, instead a simple statement about logical possibilities. You may be among the many who are wrong. Many who are at the forum believe it, including Christians who’d prefer to listen to their established scholars and not half-baked theories.

[James]

The bottom line is, with people accessing online sources, they need to be taught critical thinking skills (how to think) rather than being told what to think. They need to do this, in order to keep themselves safe. As a general rule of thumb on any topic:

1. Look at both sides of an argument.
2. Validate your sources. We have someone who calls themselves “John” and who claims to have certain credentials but at the time of typing this, has presented nothing else to back these claims up. See 1. Ironically, there is Biblical teaching to validate this idea (beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing etc). On the internet, you cannot assume that people are who they claim to be.
3. Discussing the issue with non specialists can be extremely helpful when thinking through ideas and someone being a non-specialist does not, in and of itself, invalidate the views they hold. Even if you disagree, discussion can help with the formulation of your own conclusions. However, choose a non-toxic environment where people can do this calmly and respectfully (ironically, as the Bible instructs).
4. Familiarise yourself with the more common forms of fallacious argumentation (appeal to ignorance, affirming the consequent and so on) so you can check it in yourself and spot it in the arguments of those you interact with.

[John]

You have a bunch of people on here who claim God doesn’t exist, but they offer no proof. It’s a silly argument because I can prove through my life that God exists, but is this going to convince them? No-they follow others who provide silly opinions with no evidence. The mask case is a valuable comparison. People follow the opinions they want to hear. I don’t need to prove my case for masks, just like I don’t need to prove my case for God. God exists and masks don’t work. The reason y’all want me to spoon-feed you is because you are too lazy to find the answers yourself. However, when someone presents “evidence” I will address it.

[jayceeii]

John, you’ve been providing spectacular evidence recently why there needs to be a place for atheists on God’s world. You eviscerate reason in the name of reason. Anyone who can see this would have no refuge, since none of the religions today exist in full reason, even Buddhism. I’d say if God had a choice between a dogmatist and an atheist, He’d choose the atheist, for statements offensive to reason are more offensive than disbelief in a situation admittedly unproved. If God is sending messengers to man without man knowing, surely He is tending to the atheists too, helping them to organize their thinking.

[John]

God told us what will happen, so you don’t have to speculate or guess.

[jayceeii]

You may wish to look up the word “spectacular” in the dictionary. It is unrelated to speculation. My point is you have become an example of the worst in Christianity. Many the Christians who accept science, although it has not been well-integrated in doctrine.

[Fred]

John- Strictly speaking, neither God’s existence nor his non-existence is provable. If you have had personal experiences that demonstrate God’s existence to you, that is a perfectly fine reason for you to believe, and no one can possibly prove you wrong. I hope it’s clear that your personal experiences won’t be convincing to others.

Be aware there are a lot of Christians who think they can prove God’s existence, and try to do so using arguments that William Lane Craig has written about and teaches. Discussing such arguments has been the core focus of this forum for many years. Both atheists and Christians can get something out of discussing these. If that doesn’t interest you, then don’t participate in those discussions. If you only want to have discussions with other Christians, state that in your comments. If I see that, I’ll refrain from commenting, and I encourage other atheists to do the same.

[John]

You all keep whining about me not providing evidence for the ineffectiveness of masks preventing the spread of viruses. If masks are so effective and the world believe in them, it should be very easy to find convincing data that they work. Rather than a test with three obscure data points and numerous questions about the validity of the study, you should be able to provide ample evidence. Where is it?

By the way, find the evidence that proves those swabs you’ve been shoving up your nose actually tell you with confidence that you have Covid. The answer will surprise you, but you have to dig deep to find it.

[Poul]

“In summary, this is an open site to learn about God and share information–We are blessed to have it. It’s unfortunate that a few God-haters try to prevent these discussions. They are not here to examine their views or hear what anyone has to say. They are here to disrupt. They will attack this message but what they won’t do is present any evidence for their beliefs that God doesn’t exist and masks work.“

I don’t know why you would think the God disbelievers and the mask believers would necessarily be the same people, given that the two ideas are unrelated. I myself am sceptical of both God’s existence and the efficacy of simple face masks.

And what’s your evidence that your exchanges with other believers are somehow being prevented by “a few God-haters“. Just for the record: People who don’t believe God exists are not “God-haters” because that would involve belief in His existence, wouldn’t it?

[John]

Drill down deep and you will find that people hate God because of circumstances in their lives. I know this from many atheists including one of them on this site.

[James]

A person who believes that God exists and is angry at him for the circumstances in their lives is not an atheist (because they believe God exists). They are an angry theist. A being that does not exist cannot be held responsible for anything that happens.

[John]

I never stated all people who are angry at God are atheists. I have found that in general atheists hate God because they blame God for their circumstances.

[jayceeii]

You haven’t understood James’ point here at all. An atheist won’t blame a being in whom he does not believe, for his circumstances. You beg the question, like God is in the next room. I’d doubt you can find even one atheist meeting this peculiar definition of hating God. Universally they declare there is no such being, according to the evidence they find.

[Poul]

“I have found that in general atheists hate God because they blame God for their circumstances.“

Did you not even try to understand what @James wrote? Just repeating a nonsensical claim gets you nowhere.

[jayceeii]

@Poul

Right, to call atheists God-haters begs the question. It makes a presumption the theist can just reach out and grab God, standing in the next room. Instead evidence appears lacking.

[James]

This is a red flag for me. The poster claims to be a chemical engineer and involved with national nuclear safety in addition to performing fraud investigation (roles requiring highly advanced critical thinking skills) yet the person posting is somehow managing to conflate strong atheism and mask advocacy? They haven’t worked out that someone who believes that God exists and is angry at him, is not an atheist but rather, an angry theist? That’s in addition to finding the time to come onto a site like this, just to troll people (whilst accusing others of coming online to disrupt conversations).

[John]

The red flag for me is that you support those without evidence.

[James]

Whoever you are, I hope you work past the reasons why you feel the need to behave in this way (to comment negatively about people you don’t know on a public forum, either because baiting strangers brings you pleasure or because they genuinely make you angry).

[John]

Can’t find the data so you try to troll me…

[jayceeii]

@Emuse

I’d been wondering if perhaps he was a janitor. It’s prima facie preposterous as he presents himself as a safety leader of LANL, all 14,000 employees listening to him and hating masks but bowing unwillingly to government oversight. Of which he gives no evidence.

[James]

They could be anybody! Welcome to the internet! 😀

[James]

Anyone who blames God for bad things happening in their life believes he exists (if they thought he didn’t exist, they wouldn’t be blaming him because non existent beings cannot be held responsible for bad things happening). Everyone who thinks that God exists, is not an atheist.

This is now definitely a red flag that the person posting is not a fraud investigator etc in real life.

[John]

Good point–I don’t understand them either….

[John]

The trolls keep trolling because they can’t find any evidence to support their opinions. They attack my credibility and don’t like my analysis, but they have no data response for it. Three data points from a link that has conflicting data is supposed to prove them right!!! They have no answer and accuse me of trolling, so as a pack they troll…

[John]

This posting was about evidence–can we please stick to it. I’ve had one piece of data thrown at me and you don’t like my response, but that doesn’t make it invalid. Prove that you are right and dig up some more links to throw out there and see if they stick.

[Jabberwock]

When I asked for evidence for your claim (that mask manufacturers inform the masks do not work for viruses), you have flatly refused to provide it, telling it is our job. So we are to provide evidence when we make a claim and when you make a claim… Your response to the evidence you were presented was laughable, as you have admittedly not read the whole article and incorrectly intepreted what you did read (you could not get a single number you have quoted right). Anyone honest reading this and the other thread realizes by now that you do not care about evidence at all.

[jayceeii]

Here’s some more evidence for John to ignore:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/masks-work-distorting-science-to-dispute-the-evidence-doesnt/

Medical assertions of exclusive “ownership” over the science of masks when they are used during a pandemic ignore the fact that they represent a well-understood engineered solution, with decades of widespread and successful use behind them. Demands to reject this evidence reflect a failure to recognize and respect interdisciplinary expertise that has undercut the global pandemic response.

Here’s some hard evidence, that will be called soft:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2776536

Epidemiological investigations have helped quantify the benefit of mask wearing to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (Table; Supplement). At a hair salon in which all staff and clients were required to wear a mask under local ordinance and company policy, 2 symptomatic, infected stylists attended to 139 clients and no infections were observed in the 67 clients who were reached for interviewing and testing. During a COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, persons who wore masks experienced a 70% lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.4 Similar reductions have been reported in case contact investigations when contacts were masked5 and in household clusters in which household members were masked.6

Here’s another interesting study for John not to read:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32543923/

Estimates suggest that as a result of the implementation of these mandates, more than 200,000 COVID-19 cases were averted by May 22, 2020. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19  

Caught this interesting quote by Socrates:

Obscurity is dispelled by augmenting the light of discernment, not by attacking the darkness.

scientificamerican.com

Masks Work. Distorting Science to Dispute the Evidence Doesn't

New mask studies relying on a medical paradigm do not erase decades of engineering and occupational science that show they work

[Fred]

To understand John’s point of view, it’s helpful to peruse one of his favorite sources of information:

NIH Study Suggests N95 Covid Masks May Expose Wearers to Toxic Compounds Linked to Seizures, Cancer

“The intense propaganda used to coerce you to wear a face mask is not based on science. It is a pure political power play designed to force you and your children into submission.

In April, The Gateway Pundit reported on a German study that reveals that using a face mask during pregnancy may increase the chance of stillbirth, testicular dysfunction, and cognitive decline in children.

Now, a study from researchers at Jeonbuk National University in South Korea, released in April and quietly being re-shared, suggests the “gold standard” surgical N95 masks may expose users to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals.”

thegatewaypundit.com

NIH Study Suggests N95 Covid Masks May Expose Wearers to Toxic Compounds Linked to Seizures, Cancer | The Gateway Pundit | by Margaret Flavin

The intense propaganda used to coerce you to wear a face mask is not based on science.It is a pure political power play designed to force you and your children into submission.

[jayceeii]

I noticed this supposed study too:

https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)01324-5.pdf

I thought, “Maybe they’re right,” and tried to look through the article for evidence, but what I found was deceptive tactics instead. The assertion breathing through a mask led to CO2 buildup was a surprise to me, since last summer I’d wear a mask on bike rides lasting many hours because of the smoke that was in the air, and I noticed no ill effects.

So if you read through it, you find a huge emphasize on the ill effects of CO2, but hey, this was never in doubt! All they’d really need to do is show that breathing through a mask increases CO2 like they say it does (without citation). Instead they rely on the intuition of the reader to coincide with theirs. A picture is shown of a dummy wearing a big mask and the major bronchial tubes, making it appear the lungs are small by comparison. Instead when you get to the alveoli the lung volume is capacious, and when you consider most of the mask is right next to the face its volume is small. Then, we are already re-breathing some air with every breath, because no one empties their lungs entirely. A mask changes this balance to a small degree, but we are likely breathing more frequently in response to the demand for oxygen. Not all published as science, is science.

cell.com

Just a moment...

Just a moment...

[Fred]

“When I asked for evidence for your claim (that mask manufacturers inform the masks do not work for viruses), you have flatly refused to provide it, telling it is our job. So we are to provide evidence when we make a claim and when you make a claim…”

This is exactly right. John has his beliefs (Christianity, Masks don’t work, the election was stolen…) and he invariably sets up his discussions as “prove me wrong”, while never making the case for his own position- other than to make references to his credentials, and to tell us that if we did our research we’d easily see he was right.

[jayceeii]

I think you’ve found the recipe for disaster… 😏

[James]

There are two options here (relevant, given your mention of it, in the opening post):

1. You think that people who hold God responsible for bad things in their lives (and thus, believe in the existence of God because non-existent beings cannot be held responsible for bad things happening) are atheists and just because they say they are (and even though you can also identify them as trolls), and base your judgement of atheists on what those people are saying and doing even though they are demonstrably unreliable (and you even admit to baiting people who call themselves atheists, on the basis of this).

2. You aren’t the worst fraud investigator ever and are here to intentionally bait people full stop.

If (2), there’s no point in responding. If (1), your ability to be able to properly analyse data and act appropriately on the findings is seriously called into question. I certainly wouldn’t draw any conclusions about atheists on the behaviours of some anonymous online trolls who appear to be theists, but calling themselves atheists. The latter is certainly relevant to your other claims too and people’s ability to trust any assessment you provide for any links and evidence they may throw up on other topics such as mask wearing.

Best thing people can do? Examine articles published by verifiable sources, that cover both sides of the argument and that are external to this particular discussion. If you have issues (particularly, if you are vulnerable), discuss your findings with a health care professional or other verifiable sources that you can trust (ideally, people who you can speak with face-to-face and know to be reliable and who you know have your best interests in mind).

[James]

Just for info and balance, here is an easy to understand explanation of scientific testing regarding mask wearing analysis using hamsters as test subjects.

https://youtu.be/zhQw7vLNsDA?si=c2rWygRzLZIpZ_TH

[Fred]

I felt compelled to watch, hoping to see hamsters wearing some cute little masks. Although it didn’t have this, it was a very interesting and informative video. I imagine John would dismiss it because it doesn’t give the details of the study, or because it didn’t involve humans.

It’s not clear to me exactly what John is arguing. If he’s saying that masks are not 100% effective, he’d be right. If he’s saying they’re of zero value, he’s dead wrong.

I’m going to browse through the thread to try to decipher his position.

[jayceeii]

He denied the first paper I listed because the numbers weren’t high. I’m not sure he understood (or cared) it was a large-scale study and the statistics are thus convincing.

https://egc.yale.edu/largest-study-masks-and-covid-19-demonstrates-their-effectiveness-real-world

Blood tests showed the overall reduction in symptomatic infection to be 9%, with the most vulnerable group (ages 60+) seeing a decrease of 35% for those wearing surgical masks.   

egc.yale.edu

Largest study on masks and Covid-19 demonstrates their effectiveness in the real world

Testing the NORM program for reducing Covid-19 infections Photo courtesy Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA).  While guidance and official policy on masking has evolved over the course of the pandemic

[Sophie]

I agree with John in that I do not endorse mask-wearing or lockdowns. China had the strictest measures in the world and it seemed to have stopped the spread, but when the masks came off, the virus returned with a vengeance. I’m sure there were other factors that contributed to it like visitors entering the country. There may be other factors, also, that science is not yet aware of.

In the end, nature took its course and the masks and lockdowns did nothing to stop that. The negative toll on society was catastrophic. The housing market in China is about to collapse where 30 percent of their GDP is wrapped up in real estate.

Twenty percent of commercial office buildings in the US are now vacant with Portland, OR, the highest at 29 percent. It bankrupted many small businesses and stifled the learning of the school-aged. I also noticed during the lockdowns how much more hostile people were to one another in public. If I sneezed at the grocery store with a mask on, the glares were jarring.

In my humble opinion, the misinformation and response to the pandemic produced mass hysteria. Before the vaccine was released, I came down with shingles. I had also been previously diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, which is also autoimmune-related. My first question was, what am I going to do without a vaccine? Obviously, my immune system isn’t working properly or I wouldn’t have these other issues and now, a virus on top of it?

I began a deep dive into the vitamins my body needed to fight off rheumatoid, another case of shingles, and this new virus to boot. My vitamin regimen is quite lengthy so I won’t go into all that but I will say what I believe saved the day for me was N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC), along with Vitamin D and zinc.

These were my faithful companions every day during the pandemic, whether I had time to take all the rest or not. Three times my household was struck with covid. Each time, the tests were taken, theirs were positive and mine was negative. I also worked at a job with a hundred people on my shift.

At that point, I realized that the mRNA vaccine could do no better, established as an emergency in order to get it out there quickly. Was I willing to become a participant in their laboratory experiment? I scheduled an appointment but found myself unable to go through with it.

I have no science degree but I was rational enough to look at the results of my endeavor, as well as the governments’ to push a vaccine that has not proven to be safe or effective, though they like to tout it all day long.

Eventually, probably later than sooner, after those responsible for this horrendous blunder are laid to rest, the truth will find its way through the hubris. I don’t know if anyone here has watched any of Dr. John Campbell’s videos. He’s a retired doctor from the UK and the other day, he posted a link to a paper recently released from the Australian Journal of General Practice.

What I like about this paper is the genuine compassion with which it was written. The paper is about long covid and long vax, which the symptoms are so closely related, it’s uncanny and disheartening.

Their findings about the vaccine are about 12 paragraphs into the paper, which as Dr. John Campbell described is a trickle of truth. I know many may discount this paper since it’s not well-known or a celebrated journal but it is highly respected in Australia and has been peer reviewed. RACGP – Long COVID Sufferers can take heart

www1.racgp.org.au

Long COVID Sufferers can take heart

This article acknowledges the increased knowledge, acceptance and awareness of long COVID but emphasises the need for more guidance on handling and diagnosing long COVID and supporting patients.

[Fred]

I read the article, and it does not indicate the vaccine is ineffective. The author does suggest that the vaccine might lead to some recipients experiencing “long Covid” symptoms, but also notes the the incidence of long covid from a COVID infection is 5 times greater than from the vaccine.

The data is overwhelming that masking, social distancing, and hygeine helped reduce the spread of COVID, and that the vaccines effectively stopped the pandemic. In the case of masking, it doesn’t completely prevent transmission but it does reduce the spread and thus the infection rate.

[Sophie]

I know Fred. I’m not arguing about the data over masks, or social distancing. I’m talking about the toll on society. It produces angry, disturbed, and bankrupt individuals and for those reasons, I would not be in favor of mandating it. If someone wants to wear a mask, that’s good, but don’t force it.

As far as the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, that is highly debatable. This article correctly admits there is no long-term safety data for mRNA vaccines, so as a person who doesn’t have a science degree, I have to rely on results.

I know just as many people who got the vaccine as those who didn’t and by the way it spread, I couldn’t tell the difference, outside of one girl at my job who got covid three times. She got the most inoculations of all the people I know, two shots and a booster, and she got covid three times. She was very disheartened after the third time, and I felt bad for her.

[Fred]

“This article correctly admits there is no long-term safety data for mRNA vaccines,”

It’s impossible to have long term data for a vaccine that was so recently developed.

“I know just as many people who got the vaccine as those who didn’t and by the way it spread, I couldn’t tell the difference”

There’s a great deal of variation among individual. Some have a natural immunity to COVID, some are highly susceptible. Same with response to the vaccine – some won’t benefit at all, some will get infected but with milder symptoms, and some will get a severe infection. It’s effectiveness wanes over time, and as the virus mutates, this also diminishes the effectiveness. That’s why anecdotal evidence is not the best guide to whether or not the vaccines are worthwhile. But if you review death tolls over time, it’s obvious that the vaccines played a big role in the reduction. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths.

“I’m talking about the toll on society”

Sure, that’s a factor to be considered – but be aware that it’s a cultural problem. Here’s an interesting article on the topic: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12175-9

ourworldindata.org

404 Not Found

Search articles and charts on Our World in Data.

[Algernon]

Sophie @sophie.m

I know Fred. I’m not arguing about the data over masks, or social distancing. I’m talking about the toll on society. It produces angry, disturbed, and bankrupt individuals and for those reasons, I would not be in favor of mandating it. If someone wants to wear a mask, that’s good, but don’t force it.

Are you aware that the primary benefit of community masking comes from controlling the emission of virus-laden droplets? That reducing the likelihood of inhaling infectious droplets is only a secondary benefit? That the individual prevention benefit increases with the percentage of people consistently and correctly? See article following.

How is it reasonable to allow “angry, disturbed, and bankrupt individuals” to dictate social policy? Especially when it results in deaths and suffering that could easily have been prevented? It is not only the lives of individuals who refuse to wear a mask that are at stake, but also potentially everyone that they come in contact with, and everyone that those people come in contact with, and so on. Do you believe similarly for individuals who insist on driving while intoxicated?

Why cater to selfish, immature individuals? Mask mandates do not “produce” them. In the words of Jesus, they are “wolves in sheeps clothing”. Mask mandates only reveal what already exists on the inside.

Masks are primarily intended as “source control” to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets. This is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals who feel well and may be unaware they are infectious. These cases are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions. Masks also help provide personal protection for the wearer by reducing the likelihood of inhaling infectious droplets. The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects. As the number of people using masks consistently and correctly increases, so does the individual prevention benefit.

From https://emergency.cdc.gov/newsletters/coca/11162020.htm

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Algernon.

[Sophie]

Fred, I read the first link you suggested before I responded to this topic. Papua New Guinea is one of the poorest countries in the world with a vaccination rate of 4 percent and the death rate from covid is 66 per million according to Wikipedia which was updated recently. The US, with the vaccine, is the highest in the world.

Algernon, I also read the second link that Fred suggested and it really isn’t about culture, education, or understanding, outside of the fact that humanity, by nature, are “pack animals.” There are no select few driving drunk that’s causing all the chaos. It’s rampant and worldwide. And thank you both for not attacking me for admitting I don’t have a science degree.

[Algernon]

Sophie @sophie.m

Any reason that you didn’t answer any of my questions? They are pertinent. If you answer them, perhaps it will help you to realize some things to which you currently seem “blind”.

Have you considered that all “packs” have leaders? That the leaders of this “pack” have been leading by propagating misinformation/disinformation? That the likely origin of much of this misinformation/disinformation has its origin in the US? That likely a high percentage of the leaders and followers of this “pack” in the US have been and continue to be Christians? For example, take a look at the makeup of those on this forum that continue to lead. From what I’ve seen, they are all Christian. How do you square this with, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”? As I said, ” It is not only the lives of individuals who refuse to wear a mask that are at stake, but also potentially everyone that they come in contact with, and everyone that those people come in contact with, and so on.”

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Algernon.

[Sophie]

I’m confused. Are you addressing me? I’ve followed all the mandates of society and I will continue to do so until they try to force an inoculation. I think you are seeing here more than what I’m communicating. The face mandates work but it produces angry people and not just a few drunk drivers.

[Sophie]

What I won’t be is blind to the ails of society. They can not handle mask mandates and lockdowns. It is not a cultural issue but nature that won’t allow it. I guess I’m not sure what you think I didn’t address.

[Fred]

Nature won’t allow it? How do you explain the mask wearing habits in some Asian countries? See: https://www.voanews.com/a/science-health_coronavirus-outbreak_not-just-coronavirus-asians-have-worn-face-masks-decades/6185597.html

voanews.com

Not Just Coronavirus: Asians Have Worn Face Masks for Decades

People from Japan into Southeast Asia cover their mouths to deflect exhaust, pollution and cold air, Some are hiding their faces