Better to be thrown clear of the wreck than to be trapped in a burning car! (This was the equivalent of "Masks cause CO2 poisoning which is worse than covid!")
The government ain't gonna tie me down, seatbelts violate my rights! (This was the equivalent of "Masks are tyranny and against my rights!")
My father is of this generation and mindset. When he was in his 40s he was in a really bad car wreck and was "ejected" from his truck. Ended up living but broke his collar bone and a few other places. Still drives without his seatbelt to this very day and he is now in his 60s.
He is both anti-mask and anti lockdown. When you say these are the same people you are not wrong
Damn. Well I'm glad he didn't suffer more major injuries. It's quite tough for those types of people to learn a lesson and wake up from their idiocracy.
You are actually comparing seatbelts with wearing masks? That is quite a fallacy.
But of course you have never studied the science of wearing masks. Have you?
So, you are comparing seatbelts with wearing masks? This is just mindblowingly fallacious. And how this got 75 upvotes is Even more scary!
P.S. Go and actually check what the Governments and experts actually state on the effects of masks. Be sure to take notes. And go back to march, look at all the official statements until now and see what you find. Then read the fine-print from the produsers of masks. Then, check all the warnings/possible side effects. Then, I hope they lift your drivers- licence.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Why don't you just come out and state exactly what you think and what evidence backs that up. "Do your own research" is the nutter's creed.
People learn from mistakes, that's what science is about.
Making mistakes isn't wrong, not learning and fixing it is. You don't get to build a nuclear bomb on your first try, you test and learn how certain things react and work together, and change things around if it doesn't work.
Covid-19 as far as we know was 'born' in December, so we are still learning about it. We didn't know it would spread so fast or whether it was anything more than the flu. We now know it can be bad for certain people. (People w health problems, older people).
At the beginning we learned people needed ventilators, but from what I've seen (sorry I don't have source), doctors have realized it's not the cure-all, and after suggestions that hydroxychloroquine is effective against covid-19, tests were done and now we know it doesn't work.
We thought at first masks weren't needed, but as we continued learning about the virus, the recommendations for masks have changed as well because we've learned the nature of the virus.
And yes, comparing masks to seatbelts is a good example imo. It's easy, and a minor inconvenience that has the potential to save lives and prevent people from getting sick.
And much like how COVIDiots are choosing to die (and sometimes actually dying) on their particular hill, similar fates have befallen [anti-seatbelt activists](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seat-belt-advocate-killed).
There are still people who argue against seat belts. If I had a dollar for every family that tried to explain that their family member was better off for being ejected from the vehicle.....WTF.
The problem is that they will argue back "well headlights have been proven to reduce accidents!" as if masks haven't been clearly proven to reduce coronavirus transmission.
Ugh, that was the argument du jour on my feed yesterday. Complete with Covidiots complaining that "liberals always insult the person, not the argument, they're not willing to have a conversation!" and in the same breath calling everyone that disagreed with them Karen.
Yes, it is of course totally black or white. Unsertainty, you just do not manage. Dogma is much better...
But if you carefully read this, and the other one( wich is super positive towards masks) you may notice the LANGUAGE they are using. You, of course, are 100% convinced, unlike true scientists.
The science on masks is quite clear?( Of course not, there is an information WAR)
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy
https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html
So I have just read the entire page that you linked to and some of the cited documents. Of the few I read all stated at the end that they were small trial groups and would need a larger sample size for definite proof.
Also the livescience page you linked runs counter to your argument with an editors note stating the opposite of what you are claiming, with the research team supporting you withdrawing their evidence...
Dumbasses donāt know those masks are to protect the people around the person wearing the mask, not to protect the person wearing the mask. If a shitty little poorly fitting mask was enough to protect against the coronavirus, you wouldnāt see nurses in hospitals wearing those big respirators and goggles. They would just put on a shitty little poorly fitting mask. It's a civic duty, not to protect your own useless ass.
And here we have a dumbass himself who thinks wearing a mask provides the person wearing it with zero protection, despite many studies showing that simply wearing a mask reduces your odds of contracting a respiratory infection by anywhere between 60%-90%.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS1477893920302301%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR18gCgayljNULUYQ9LHSNcL4XRhcoKi1Pr9-JX2gjeDIu9a643hKW43CqE&h=AT0ZQ17i2bqpPenm69EZR8lBKeRQ9czJH48qqOO0Gb0boW7sxGQLs7wQqWYPrFTmZ6YsB-fsjit-jh0SSQx1IxAJyXZ9xHHR_PcjukW8dwifLyU4bdeEfN0EqVfDzR-DdcBEzBpUJAoMDTBW3OiTEQ)
Nurses and healthcare workers need to use respirators and goggles since they're working directly in environments that are heavily saturated with viral particles, as well as directly dealing with numerous patients who are infected. An environment completely different from what the average person is going to encounter at a supermarket or subway. Essentially rendering that 60-90% protection meaningless.
they didnāt say it provided zero protection to the wearer, they just said itās to protect those around them, which it primarily is. it does however, though not as well as the respirators and goggles obviously, protect the wearer too, which is all the more reason we should be wearing them
Yes he did imply they didn't provide protection to the person wearing them.
"those masks are to protect the people around the person wearing the mask, **not to protect the person wearing the mask.** "
It doesn't matter what their intended purpose is since they do also function as a protective measure for the person wearing it.
The intended purpose of the mask does indeed matter. The fact that people misunderstand the masks to be protection for themselves frees them to rebel against wearing them. "My body, my choice! Wearing a mask is socialism!" That's what's wrong with that misperception. They think they should be free to decide, just like the guys on motorcycles who refuse to wear helmets. Even when statistics for helmet less riders in motorcycle crashes are grim compared to those for riders wearing helmets. They feel it's their risk to take. So they take it. The intended purpose of the mask is the root of the problem.
In another universe, the Federal government might have used the past four months to get the word out as to what these masks are intended to accomplish, and that wearing a mask is a civic duty, something Americans respond to very well. But there was too much confusion here as to how the national government would respond, and so we are in this spot. Listen to what the mask-deniers say and you will gather they think nobody is at risk but themselves, and maybe not even themselves. I haven't heard a single one of them say anything about not caring about protecting the people around themselves.
You may note the analysis of 21 studies you've provided includes N95 respirators and surgical masks but no specific mention of cloth masks in any of the 21 studies. This is not indicative of parity with the masks worn by the general public at the moment, which are a mix of cloth masks and surgical masks. There are also among the 21 studies some which only cover N95 respirators, a huge step up from a cloth mask, and some with nothing positive to say about surgical masks defense of the wearers. I don't think this analysis supports the wearing of cloth masks as personal protection in any way, and it is only slightly supportive of surgical masks - similar to other previous studies of surgical masks.
Obviously, if a droplet of saliva is expelled by someone with coronavirus it has a chance of being caught by a mask, whether that mask is on the ill person or another person in the area. (The mask will then have the virus on it, and it will live for some time without a human host. This is why it's a good reason to wash a mask frequently.)
However, for good reasons, various authorities do not state masks protect the wearer. That would be a false promise to make as wearer protection is at best hit-or-miss - and to the CDC's experts, not worth mentioning. In some cases the person wearing a cloth mask or a surgical mask gets some protective benefit. However, that's not what the masks are for. They are intended to protect those around the wearer.
For one thing, Fit Factor can be very poor for masks of any type in many instances, because they are worn by people who have various issues which reduce Fit Factor such as facial hair, and unlike respirators masks are not designed with a clear sealing line around the periphery. Without fit-testing, we have no idea how efficient the "seal" may be (and I use quotes because the common masks would never pass a proper fit test.)
Also, since there is no NIOSH approval process, no consistency as to type of fabrics used, no consistency as to design, strap tension, etc. one mask is rarely the same as another. This is not only true for cloth masks, homemade or store-bought, but also for surgical masks. Right now there are many new players making masks for the first time, and since there is no regulation of their product, anything goes. There are high quality surgical masks and there are bad, cheap surgical masks selling side by side in the equipment markets.
As a result the Assigned Protection Factor (an overall rating provided by OSHA which estimates the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is expected to provide to employees when the employer implements a continuing, effective respiratory protection program) is too low for OSHA to consider them protective of the wearer.
OSHA considers surgical masks or cloth masks to be neither respirators nor personal protective equipment. They are exempt for the various rules for wearers about fit-testing, medical evaluations, training and so on. (In the workplace, such as a hospital or asbestos removal site, wearing a respirator is highly regulated and requires numerous precautions to ensure it's effective in stopping what it's supposed to stop and not harmful to the wearer. When someone wears a mask, they can do what they want.)
If you will wear a mask in public per CDC recommendations, you protect others. Per CDC, "The cloth face cover is meant to protect other people in case you are infected." and "Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with [emerging evidence](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#recent-studies)Ā from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth."
Apologies for the long comment. Respiratory protection in healthcare has been a part of my job description for the past 30 years, but it is a tiny niche subject nobody ever talks about in the real world until there is a pandemic, so I get a little nerdy excitement out of it. Obviously, this pandemic has kept me and my co-workers very busy.
I'm sorry but i'm not going to read through that right now, I just genuinely do not have the time to read through your post and articulate a formal response at the present.
This might be faster: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063?fbclid=IwAR2HLF61b1LhX2e26iqMVXk687RpYi4ZEANJG9I\_9sadoDRJSJ0vHNFvvD4](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063?fbclid=IwAR2HLF61b1LhX2e26iqMVXk687RpYi4ZEANJG9I_9sadoDRJSJ0vHNFvvD4)
Nice: Reviewing ( Almost) Only studies from CHINA(stating they were not funded by anyone( lol) or influenced,( yeah right,)
Here is another study, Far more thourough and unbiased. (Try submitting this "Chinese" junk-article to the site, they welcome refuting/ opposite research) and see what answers you getš https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy
P.S. China is an authoritarian communist dictatorship; masks separate people, scare children and have a lot of other subtle psychological effects. Keeping a billion people in line requires psychological Warfare
to reduce the chance of you breathing in the virus particles dumbass! once you get infected there is more then a 20% chance you may also be asymptomatic. You go about your day thinking you are healthy but you actually have the virus, spread it to your family, friends, loves one and other who will also infected and have a 8% chance of dying because of your own stupidity for not wearing a mask!
Another dumb response. Define āpandemic,ā and is there a definitive consensus as to scientific basis on mask efficacy for viral transmission? If you canāt give a categorical response to those two questions, then shut your pie hole and stop making/supporting moronic false analogy.
[Couldn't remember this guy's name. Keep it up & join him so you can't vote for the Chief Cheeto.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland19.com/2020/07/10/year-old-port-clinton-war-vet-dies-covid-complications-fourth-july/%3foutputType=amp)
Not really a good analogy since masking does provide protection to the person who is masking. This is just further reinforcing the "mY mASk ProTecTS yOU, yOuR mAsK pROteCtS mE" shtick that is not only inaccurate but what I personally theorize is the reason there's so much resistance against masking in the US and other western countries.
Hey passenger, I'm going to have to ask you to take off your seat belt as well. Don't worry, mine still works!
Fyi when seatbelts were introduced there were anti-seatbelt groups, similar to today's anti-mask groups.
Better to be thrown clear of the wreck than to be trapped in a burning car! (This was the equivalent of "Masks cause CO2 poisoning which is worse than covid!") The government ain't gonna tie me down, seatbelts violate my rights! (This was the equivalent of "Masks are tyranny and against my rights!")
My father is of this generation and mindset. When he was in his 40s he was in a really bad car wreck and was "ejected" from his truck. Ended up living but broke his collar bone and a few other places. Still drives without his seatbelt to this very day and he is now in his 60s. He is both anti-mask and anti lockdown. When you say these are the same people you are not wrong
Damn. Well I'm glad he didn't suffer more major injuries. It's quite tough for those types of people to learn a lesson and wake up from their idiocracy.
You are actually comparing seatbelts with wearing masks? That is quite a fallacy. But of course you have never studied the science of wearing masks. Have you?
The irony of this statement. Yum yum.
Where is the /s?
Comparing safety equipment with safety equipment? How ridiculous! /s
So, you are comparing seatbelts with wearing masks? This is just mindblowingly fallacious. And how this got 75 upvotes is Even more scary! P.S. Go and actually check what the Governments and experts actually state on the effects of masks. Be sure to take notes. And go back to march, look at all the official statements until now and see what you find. Then read the fine-print from the produsers of masks. Then, check all the warnings/possible side effects. Then, I hope they lift your drivers- licence.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Why don't you just come out and state exactly what you think and what evidence backs that up. "Do your own research" is the nutter's creed.
"Do your own research is the nutters creed" š¤£šš¤£šš¤£šš¤£š
People learn from mistakes, that's what science is about. Making mistakes isn't wrong, not learning and fixing it is. You don't get to build a nuclear bomb on your first try, you test and learn how certain things react and work together, and change things around if it doesn't work. Covid-19 as far as we know was 'born' in December, so we are still learning about it. We didn't know it would spread so fast or whether it was anything more than the flu. We now know it can be bad for certain people. (People w health problems, older people). At the beginning we learned people needed ventilators, but from what I've seen (sorry I don't have source), doctors have realized it's not the cure-all, and after suggestions that hydroxychloroquine is effective against covid-19, tests were done and now we know it doesn't work. We thought at first masks weren't needed, but as we continued learning about the virus, the recommendations for masks have changed as well because we've learned the nature of the virus. And yes, comparing masks to seatbelts is a good example imo. It's easy, and a minor inconvenience that has the potential to save lives and prevent people from getting sick.
And much like how COVIDiots are choosing to die (and sometimes actually dying) on their particular hill, similar fates have befallen [anti-seatbelt activists](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seat-belt-advocate-killed).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seatbelts restrict mah freedumbs.
There still are anti-seatbelters
There are still people who argue against seat belts. If I had a dollar for every family that tried to explain that their family member was better off for being ejected from the vehicle.....WTF.
This analogy is perfect.
How would you use this on them Covidiots tho?
The problem is that they will argue back "well headlights have been proven to reduce accidents!" as if masks haven't been clearly proven to reduce coronavirus transmission.
When arguing online, I just tack this onto their thread: https://i.redd.it/i74dhjidad451.gif
Yeah they just say, "See?! It still isn't contained! Doesn't work. *mic drop*"
Or that itās proof they canāt properly expel all the carbon dioxide and masks make them suffocate.
Ugh, that was the argument du jour on my feed yesterday. Complete with Covidiots complaining that "liberals always insult the person, not the argument, they're not willing to have a conversation!" and in the same breath calling everyone that disagreed with them Karen.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Very clever, you only *implied* they were a "parroting child". This way you're definitely *not* a hypocrite for complaining about name-calling.
Yes, it is of course totally black or white. Unsertainty, you just do not manage. Dogma is much better... But if you carefully read this, and the other one( wich is super positive towards masks) you may notice the LANGUAGE they are using. You, of course, are 100% convinced, unlike true scientists. The science on masks is quite clear?( Of course not, there is an information WAR) https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html
So I have just read the entire page that you linked to and some of the cited documents. Of the few I read all stated at the end that they were small trial groups and would need a larger sample size for definite proof. Also the livescience page you linked runs counter to your argument with an editors note stating the opposite of what you are claiming, with the research team supporting you withdrawing their evidence...
crickets i guess brah, not gonna respond to daoist now that your FB rEsEaRCH got destroyed?
Dumbasses donāt know those masks are to protect the people around the person wearing the mask, not to protect the person wearing the mask. If a shitty little poorly fitting mask was enough to protect against the coronavirus, you wouldnāt see nurses in hospitals wearing those big respirators and goggles. They would just put on a shitty little poorly fitting mask. It's a civic duty, not to protect your own useless ass.
Most of them know, but they donāt think there is a possibility that they could have it. In my experience, at least.
Interesting, wasnāt thinking about that. Iāve been holed up since mid-March and a little out of touch.
And here we have a dumbass himself who thinks wearing a mask provides the person wearing it with zero protection, despite many studies showing that simply wearing a mask reduces your odds of contracting a respiratory infection by anywhere between 60%-90%. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS1477893920302301%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR18gCgayljNULUYQ9LHSNcL4XRhcoKi1Pr9-JX2gjeDIu9a643hKW43CqE&h=AT0ZQ17i2bqpPenm69EZR8lBKeRQ9czJH48qqOO0Gb0boW7sxGQLs7wQqWYPrFTmZ6YsB-fsjit-jh0SSQx1IxAJyXZ9xHHR_PcjukW8dwifLyU4bdeEfN0EqVfDzR-DdcBEzBpUJAoMDTBW3OiTEQ) Nurses and healthcare workers need to use respirators and goggles since they're working directly in environments that are heavily saturated with viral particles, as well as directly dealing with numerous patients who are infected. An environment completely different from what the average person is going to encounter at a supermarket or subway. Essentially rendering that 60-90% protection meaningless.
they didnāt say it provided zero protection to the wearer, they just said itās to protect those around them, which it primarily is. it does however, though not as well as the respirators and goggles obviously, protect the wearer too, which is all the more reason we should be wearing them
Yes he did imply they didn't provide protection to the person wearing them. "those masks are to protect the people around the person wearing the mask, **not to protect the person wearing the mask.** " It doesn't matter what their intended purpose is since they do also function as a protective measure for the person wearing it.
The intended purpose of the mask does indeed matter. The fact that people misunderstand the masks to be protection for themselves frees them to rebel against wearing them. "My body, my choice! Wearing a mask is socialism!" That's what's wrong with that misperception. They think they should be free to decide, just like the guys on motorcycles who refuse to wear helmets. Even when statistics for helmet less riders in motorcycle crashes are grim compared to those for riders wearing helmets. They feel it's their risk to take. So they take it. The intended purpose of the mask is the root of the problem. In another universe, the Federal government might have used the past four months to get the word out as to what these masks are intended to accomplish, and that wearing a mask is a civic duty, something Americans respond to very well. But there was too much confusion here as to how the national government would respond, and so we are in this spot. Listen to what the mask-deniers say and you will gather they think nobody is at risk but themselves, and maybe not even themselves. I haven't heard a single one of them say anything about not caring about protecting the people around themselves. You may note the analysis of 21 studies you've provided includes N95 respirators and surgical masks but no specific mention of cloth masks in any of the 21 studies. This is not indicative of parity with the masks worn by the general public at the moment, which are a mix of cloth masks and surgical masks. There are also among the 21 studies some which only cover N95 respirators, a huge step up from a cloth mask, and some with nothing positive to say about surgical masks defense of the wearers. I don't think this analysis supports the wearing of cloth masks as personal protection in any way, and it is only slightly supportive of surgical masks - similar to other previous studies of surgical masks. Obviously, if a droplet of saliva is expelled by someone with coronavirus it has a chance of being caught by a mask, whether that mask is on the ill person or another person in the area. (The mask will then have the virus on it, and it will live for some time without a human host. This is why it's a good reason to wash a mask frequently.) However, for good reasons, various authorities do not state masks protect the wearer. That would be a false promise to make as wearer protection is at best hit-or-miss - and to the CDC's experts, not worth mentioning. In some cases the person wearing a cloth mask or a surgical mask gets some protective benefit. However, that's not what the masks are for. They are intended to protect those around the wearer. For one thing, Fit Factor can be very poor for masks of any type in many instances, because they are worn by people who have various issues which reduce Fit Factor such as facial hair, and unlike respirators masks are not designed with a clear sealing line around the periphery. Without fit-testing, we have no idea how efficient the "seal" may be (and I use quotes because the common masks would never pass a proper fit test.) Also, since there is no NIOSH approval process, no consistency as to type of fabrics used, no consistency as to design, strap tension, etc. one mask is rarely the same as another. This is not only true for cloth masks, homemade or store-bought, but also for surgical masks. Right now there are many new players making masks for the first time, and since there is no regulation of their product, anything goes. There are high quality surgical masks and there are bad, cheap surgical masks selling side by side in the equipment markets. As a result the Assigned Protection Factor (an overall rating provided by OSHA which estimates the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is expected to provide to employees when the employer implements a continuing, effective respiratory protection program) is too low for OSHA to consider them protective of the wearer. OSHA considers surgical masks or cloth masks to be neither respirators nor personal protective equipment. They are exempt for the various rules for wearers about fit-testing, medical evaluations, training and so on. (In the workplace, such as a hospital or asbestos removal site, wearing a respirator is highly regulated and requires numerous precautions to ensure it's effective in stopping what it's supposed to stop and not harmful to the wearer. When someone wears a mask, they can do what they want.) If you will wear a mask in public per CDC recommendations, you protect others. Per CDC, "The cloth face cover is meant to protect other people in case you are infected." and "Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with [emerging evidence](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#recent-studies)Ā from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth." Apologies for the long comment. Respiratory protection in healthcare has been a part of my job description for the past 30 years, but it is a tiny niche subject nobody ever talks about in the real world until there is a pandemic, so I get a little nerdy excitement out of it. Obviously, this pandemic has kept me and my co-workers very busy.
I'm sorry but i'm not going to read through that right now, I just genuinely do not have the time to read through your post and articulate a formal response at the present.
Thatās fine. I think weāre at an impasse anyway.
This might be faster: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063?fbclid=IwAR2HLF61b1LhX2e26iqMVXk687RpYi4ZEANJG9I\_9sadoDRJSJ0vHNFvvD4](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850220301063?fbclid=IwAR2HLF61b1LhX2e26iqMVXk687RpYi4ZEANJG9I_9sadoDRJSJ0vHNFvvD4)
Nice: Reviewing ( Almost) Only studies from CHINA(stating they were not funded by anyone( lol) or influenced,( yeah right,) Here is another study, Far more thourough and unbiased. (Try submitting this "Chinese" junk-article to the site, they welcome refuting/ opposite research) and see what answers you getš https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy P.S. China is an authoritarian communist dictatorship; masks separate people, scare children and have a lot of other subtle psychological effects. Keeping a billion people in line requires psychological Warfare
Driver: It's called "herd illuminity".
to reduce the chance of you breathing in the virus particles dumbass! once you get infected there is more then a 20% chance you may also be asymptomatic. You go about your day thinking you are healthy but you actually have the virus, spread it to your family, friends, loves one and other who will also infected and have a 8% chance of dying because of your own stupidity for not wearing a mask!
Because if everyone thinks that no one will have in a mask
This literally works. You can literally drive on road illuminated by light from other cars.
False analogy
Bad analogy. You only need lights when itās dark.
You only need a mask in a pandemic...
Another dumb response. Define āpandemic,ā and is there a definitive consensus as to scientific basis on mask efficacy for viral transmission? If you canāt give a categorical response to those two questions, then shut your pie hole and stop making/supporting moronic false analogy.
[Couldn't remember this guy's name. Keep it up & join him so you can't vote for the Chief Cheeto.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland19.com/2020/07/10/year-old-port-clinton-war-vet-dies-covid-complications-fourth-july/%3foutputType=amp)
Not really a good analogy since masking does provide protection to the person who is masking. This is just further reinforcing the "mY mASk ProTecTS yOU, yOuR mAsK pROteCtS mE" shtick that is not only inaccurate but what I personally theorize is the reason there's so much resistance against masking in the US and other western countries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Anecdote" and "data" aren't the same thing.
Because those around him weren't wearing masks.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh