Disease X

[acceptance]

You can throw that word around all you want, but I already covered my feelings towards it by calling you a “sniveling contrarian” before you even googled arguendo

It's a common term in debate and accurately applies. Look, maybe if they excluded all the PCR positives and only kept symptomatic illness the results would have changed. One could theorize that that would only make the standard of masks working even harder to meet. But are you ready to give up your supposedly objective PCR test anyways? Without having checked, I assume they used a mix of PCR and symptomatic assessment to qualify illness, which I would not have a problem with. Why is this such a sticking point with you? Get over it already. Masks don't work

 

[acceptance]

As far as I'm concerned a contrarian is simply one who is unconstrained by herd mentality. I don't argue against convention for the sake of it.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

It's a common term in debate and accurately applies. Look, maybe if they excluded all the PCR positives and only kept symptomatic illness the results would have changed. But are you ready to give up your supposedly objective PCR test? And without having checked, I assume they used a mix of PCR and symptomatic assessment to qualify illness anyways, which I would not have a problem with. Why is this such a sticking point with you? Get over it already. Masks don't work

I’ll give up a pcr test lol. every test for a virus needs to first identify a virus. They all need intimate knowledge of something you are skeptical can even be proven.
Are you retarded?

 

[acceptance]

I’ll give up a pcr test lol. every test for a virus needs to first identify a virus. They all need intimate knowledge of something you are skeptical can even be proven.
Are you retarded?

Okay we're going in circles. I thought you were smarter than this. The meta study concluded that masks don't prevent the illness you think they do, using the criteria to determine illness that you think they should use. How's that?

 

[acceptance]

Anyways, have fun trying to add this all up. I'm out for now.

 

[Thumbpicker]

The neuroticism of a society that thinks a cheap dust mask will protect you.

The neuroticism of surgeons for practicing hygiene in the operating room. They should just wipe their arses and operate... what's a little shit flying about.

 

[Thumbpicker]

I'm already shitting myself.

Disease X sounds real-scary.

I'm not. I'm already Gen X. So I'm immune.

 

[acceptance]

The neuroticism of surgeons for practicing hygiene in the operating room. They should just wipe their arses and operate... what's a little shit flying about.

Yeah, surgeons wear masks to prevent spit, sweat and so one from falling into open body cavities, not to prevent influenza like illness. For what it's worth there are studies that show no difference in surgery outcome whether the doc used a mask or not. But I'd prefer they wore one if it were me.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Okay we're going in circles. I thought you were smarter than this. The meta study concluded that masks don't prevent the illness you think they do, using the criteria to determine illness that you think they should use. How's that?

Well I didn’t necessarily have an issue with the study you presented.
Just that you used it as evidence directly after saying you don’t accept the science behind it. Hence, you are full of shit and just like to go with whatever is cool to be against at the moment

 

[VonBonfire]

The neuroticism of surgeons for practicing hygiene in the operating room. They should just wipe their arses and operate... what's a little shit flying about.

Grandpa wallaby, a mask worn during a surgery so the surgeon doesn't accidentally get spittle in a patient's open wound is much different from wearing a paper or cloth mask over your face thinking you will stop transmission of a disease..

@acceptance just told you the same thing because this is common knowledge that has somehow escaped you.

 

[Thumbpicker]

Well I didn’t necessarily have an issue with the study you presented.
Just that you used it as evidence directly after saying you don’t accept the science behind it. Hence, you are full of shit and just like to go with whatever is cool to be against at the moment

I honestly don't know why anyone spends the time arguing here. It's like trying to teach chickens integral calculus i.e. futile.

 

[VonBonfire]

I honestly don't know why anyone spends the time arguing here. It's like trying to teach chickens integral calculus i.e. futile.

Then what are you doing here besides taking up bandwidth genius?

 

[Thumbpicker]

Grandpa wallaby, a mask worn during a surgery so the surgeon doesn't accidentally get spittle in a patient's open wound is much different from wearing a paper or cloth mask over your face thinking you will stop transmission of a disease..

@acceptance just told you the same thing because this is common knowledge that has somehow escaped you.

It does though. It reduces the amount of fine droplets and therefore the amount of virus circulating in the air. Any reduction in risk is better than no reduction of risk... Go tell the army not to wear helmets - won't stop a bullet going through their brain will it... but actually it does reduce the risk of death sometimes doesn't it.

 

[Thumbpicker]

Don't wear seatbelts because it's proven you can still get killed in a car accident regardless... yeah right.

 

[VonBonfire]

It does though. It reduces the amount of fine droplets and therefore the amount of virus circulating in the air. Any reduction in risk is better than no reduction of risk... Go tell the army not to wear helmets - won't stop a bullet going through their brain will it... but actually it does reduce the risk of death sometimes doesn't it.

"Reduces the amount of fine droplets". Reduces. So in other words instead of expelling the virus the normal way a body is designed to, you breathe it in over and over and over again, encouraging greater sickness for the wearer. Sounds like something a real dumbass would do.

 

[acceptance]

Well I didn’t necessarily have an issue with the study you presented.
Just that you used it as evidence directly after saying you don’t accept the science behind it. Hence, you are full of shit and just like to go with whatever is cool to be against at the moment

I didn't say that I don't accept the science behind it. I said I was skeptical that viruses exist. But regardless, assuming one believes that viruses exist and are communicable according to commonly understood mechanics, masks don't work. You took issue with that because you wrongly believed that somehow disqualified me from citing the study. But I'm glad to hear you don't have a problem with the study that found masks don't work.

 

[Thumbpicker]

"Reduces the amount of fine droplets". Reduces. So in other words instead of expelling the virus the normal way a body is designed to, you breathe it in over and over and over again, encouraging greater sickness for the wearer. Sounds like something a real dumbass would do.

If it bought you a few more minutes before you got enough viral load is it worth it? Is it worth wearing an asbestos suit near a huge fire if it bought you a minute before you were cremated or do you just go in unprotected.

 

[VonBonfire]

If it bought you a few more minutes before you got enough viral load is it worth it?

Looking like a fag is never worth it.

Is it worth wearing an asbestos suit near a huge fire if it bought you a minute before you were cremated or do you just go in unprotected.

This is the kind of question an old dude who lives on the upside down part of the rapidly spinning ball asks.

 

[acceptance]

It does though. It reduces the amount of fine droplets and therefore the amount of virus circulating in the air. Any reduction in risk is better than no reduction of risk... Go tell the army not to wear helmets - won't stop a bullet going through their brain will it... but actually it does reduce the risk of death sometimes doesn't it.

Let me ask you Father Time, how much does wearing a mask reduce risk?

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]