Horowitz: Exposing the maskerade: The questions every American should be asking about indefinite mask mandates

Nop,e I’m right, iw as right the last 10 times you pulled this stunt.

You just didn’t look it up. You’re entitled Dave, you pretend you already know, when you’ve never looked into it.

You admit you put 0 effort in. It’s not moral, it’s not right, so you have no excuse, so i don’t get why you’re trying, it just doesn’t work.

Works fine because you’re only rarely right in what you post here.

You can’t claim that here certianly.

The first two posts I put here, including the one you quoted from, I’m not posting any links.

Instead, I made reference to the links Tommy gave to me, while laying out what source control is, and why mitigation is something masks provide.

I laid out the logic first. I explained why viral load was important.

Then when Dave made the “BS” comment, denying viral load was important, I posted a study. Not a person, not just an organization making an assertion, a study showing viral load is important.

So what’s the fair analysis? Doesn’t match what you said.

You and Dave should both just get better at looking at numbers. Don’t get why you think you shouldn’t numbers are better than your mere assertions.

How do you think Thomas Sowell makes his case? He quotes studies.

Nope, it’s immoral and you’re wrong.

It’s cowardly, because you’re not offering your own logic for cross-examination.

It’s lazy, because you put 0 effort in. Which you admit you’re doing.

Your excuses are just excuses Dave, what you’re doing is wrong.

Thomas Sowell wouldn’t be a 1/4 of the force he is, if he didn’t look things up. And if someone like him needs to look things up, you have no excuse whatsoever.

None Dave.

Tommy’s link did not make your argument any more than your links make your argument, you take snippets and then extrapolate unsupported conclusions from those snippets; like you do in every debate :rofl:

Masks harm the person wearing them and provide no protection for those not wearing them; the mask in general public does not help in any way and causes harm to those who embrace your lies.

Yes they did, I don’t think you read them.

The first one outright stated masks worked as mitigation, the second showed masks reduced range of particles, and broke up droplets into aerosols, and that aerosols had less viral load.

Curious how you haven’t said anything about viral load, despite that being the main point here.

Your lying.
Viral load is not relevant in the claim that transmission is reduced, viral load is not relevant with a flu that is so weak it can barely produce symptoms in people who are not in high risk groups.

Contamination of the environment where sick people are located is not mitigated by them wearing a mask, that is your claim and NOTHING you have referenced concludes that ridiculous claim.

You are just using irrelevant minutia to misdirect like you always do because your narrative is not supported by any legitimate science :slight_smile:

The “black line” includes all of the unconfirmed deaths from your covid liars, you are once again claiming that science supports your lies while providing nothing but conclusions based on anectodal data :rofl:

And I won’t follow you down your guessing trail, I have actual science that supports my position so I have no need for such nonsense :wink:

From Tommy’s study:

"The masks help mitigate the risk of cross-infection via respiratory droplets; however, there are no specific guidelines on mask materials and designs that are most effective in minimizing droplet dispersal. "

So you didn’t read it. You should have done that before making comments.

Nope, you’re talking about misreporting cause of deaths.

These are just hard counts of overall deaths. And again, we see this spike worldwide.

Why would Sweden lie RET? Do you even have an answer?

OK. How’s THIS for “logic.” Medicare and Medicaid are giving hospitals and other care faclities twice as much for treating Covid cases than any other illnesses and as much as $39K if the care facility claims to have treated the patient with a respirator. As soon as that was made public, we saw a HUGE spike in Covid cases–especially in “blue” States–and especially in Covid “deaths” because THAT’S. when they got their money. Even some medical examiners got in on the scam. We’ve seen instances all over the country where auto accidents have resulted in Covid deaths. Where fatal bullet wounds have been deemed because of Covid-19, where a motorcycle fatality was classified as a Covid death and even where an old lady dying of pneumonia had her cause of death changed to a Covid death, 2 MONTHS after the death had occurred prior to anyone but China and WHO knowing anything about Covid-19 and LONG after she’d been buried. We’ve seen State agencies conducting testing report 100% “positive” results which is statistically IMPOSSIBLE. I’ve had a personal doctor tell me to NOT wear a mask because (1) they don’t do much good and (2) my rebreathing my own CO2 is UNHEALTHY for me and for MOST people my age and physical condition.

Result?: This Covid business is mostly scam and a means by which the U.S. economy can be trashed in hopes that’ll defeat President Trump in November. Those keeping “data” have been caught scamming the system, yet you and CSB buy their nonsense hook, line and sinker. I don’t.

I know about this, I fully acknowledge it’s real, and I give you credit for making an effort, but what does this have to do with viral load?

What does this have to do with evaluating whether masks reduce it?

Vial load was important long before COVID came around, you specifically denied that.

Do actually have a reason for saying that? Or do you admit it is important, and that your “BS” comment was misplaced?

BS, (again, LOL). Viral load is immaterial if the Covid virus is as virulent as we’ve been told from the outset. You can contract the disease from a SINGLE virus because once it’s in YOUR system, it multiplies exponentially.

For most people, no, you have to hit a certain critical mass before you’re infected.

And even if you are infected by one virus, that infection will be far weaker than if it was someone sneezing on you.

That’s why viral load is important. This is true for flu, and it’s true for SARS. Why would COVID be any different?

Oh man you don’t get it!

The links makes clear even at reduced transmission rates, it doesn’t t
male infection rate go lower, again just ONE virus can infect, just one.

You are not reading the medical papers that makes this point clear over and over, you are part of the reason why this country has been bogged down with the mask and goggle stupidity.

===\

I notice you completely ignored this part, gee I wonder why…

Why did the CDC, World Health Organization, and such luminaries as Fauci and Surgeon General Jerome Adams so emphatically dismiss the effectiveness of masks, then flip 180 degrees to the point where they shame people who don’t wear them, without ever explaining what changed? While we learn more about the virus every day, the micro-biology of the particles hasn’t changed, and the premise that non-professional masks worn by non-trained professionals run the risk of counterproductive cross-contamination did not change.

I do, masks aren’t good protection, but they are good source control.

Reducing viral load is important, and a good thing.

Infections are not made equal, getting an infection by just one is not nearly as bad as getting infected by a sneeze.

The amount of virus determines how bad your symptoms are.

I don’t think you knew this.

I addressed that over a month ago.

And your premise is flawed from a month ago, too, AS. There is NO EVIDENCE that being infected by a single virus is in any way SAFER or less dangerous than being infected by thousands of them. To think so is pure, unadulterated stupidity and indicative of someone who hasn’t the least clue about how infections operate.

1 Like

Yeah there is, SARS worked this way (so does flu), and link I gave you was of study showing COVID works the same way.

They’re both coronaviruses. They both work this way. That study is evidence Dave, and so is the fact that other viruses work the same way.

“help mitigate” is not science, neither is “greatly reduce” or “significant benefit”; those are terms tossed out to avoid being trapped by your own BS.

They NEVER tested the contamination level of a clean room after an infected person spent time in the room wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask. They NEVER addressed the reality that masks worn in general public are CONTANIMATED THE MOMENT YOU TOUCH THEM and get worse every minute of the day as you wear them and pull them on and off, they NEVER addressed the KNOWN ill effects of breathing air through a contaminated mask ALL DAY LONG compared to the “risks” associated with this glorified cold.

You posted NO SCIENCE, only lies and propaganda; as usual.

1 Like

You used “reduced” and denied they said it:

This study was about masks reducing transmission, and viral load was apart of how they reached that conclusion.

So no where did I lie, you just didn’t read the study.

And yet the study said it.

I didn’t post the study, Tommy did. He thought it was concluding masks were useless because they leak, but he was wrong.

He, like you, didn’t read it.

The only one who lied here was you. You claimed to know what the study said and that I misrepresented it.

Yet here you are now claiming instead that the study is propaganda, because I forced you to read it.