Fauci says masks might be necessary ‘into 2022,’ in spite of vaccine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve posted in another thread that masks that are not N95 quality or better do not help nearly as much as thought. Even Dr Fauci knew this at the beginning and said on March 8 on 60 Minutes that people didn’t need to go around wearing masks. But something changed after Dr Fauci said that. Some new data must have come up to get him to change his tack. What was that? I posted this question in another thread and no one even attempted an answer. It was just another uncomfortable question that was best ignored. So here it is again: what research provided the backing for the CDC to move on from Dr Fauci’s March 8 statements to issuing mask guidelines in early April?

Here’s a snapshot from four counties in Tennessee that surround Knoxville. One has a mask mandate while the other three do not. Can you distinguish from this chart which county has had the mask mandate since July?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

continued next post
 
Now people will cite studies at me. Fine. But there is a problem: every mask study that supports masks is deeply flawed in several ways:

First, it has the “subjects” wearing them for a few minutes, or uses a machine to “simulate” breathing.
A person doing shift work or a kid in school is wearing them for hours. None of the physical dynamics (evaporation of moisture, accumulation and replication of bacteria, etc) are accounted for because the trial is intentionally too short. It’s too short because actually instrumenting someone in a workplace or school is impossible. So those factors, which wildly change and in fact are recognized in OSHA regulations that mandate changing of said masks when used for particulate exposure in an industrial setting are ignored.

Second, it does not capture or measure anything except in front of the mask.
Which, for other than N95s, flows a tiny fraction of the total airflow because a gas will preferentially take the path of least resistance which is around the unsealed part of the face. They then show “greatly reduced” particle emissions which arose because they only looked at the small fraction that went through the mask instead of around it.

Third, it intentionally ignores transport.
The entire point of wearing a mask in any environment is to capture and sequester whatever either comes in (protecting you) or goes out (protecting others.) As soon as you move the capturing device from one place to another and continue to use it you expose everything and everyone who happens to come into contact with it to whatever it happened to capture. If any of that is released back into the environment then you have made the problem worse rather than better. Exactly zero “studies” control for any of this and that is intentional because if they did there would not only be no benefit possible the only outcome would be a very negative finding of harm at the level of intentional infection of others.

Fourth, with one exception, which in fact showed increased emissions from paper and cloth masks over an unmasked control, focuses only on “droplets” and ignores particles under ~50um, which is the limit of visualization with the naked eye. This, despite universal recognition, including by the CDC, EPA, OSHA and everyone else that what is called “PM2.5”, or particles under 2.5um, are the ones of particular concern as they are able to get deep into the lungs without being trapped and consumed or expelled by the body’s mechanical defenses. This is especially relevant for a virus that infects the lungs on a direct basis rather than the upper respiratory tract.

Now does anyone still wonder why mask mandates don’t make a difference? If you want your masks, fine, but you need to wear correctly fitted N95’s or better to get the desired mitigation benefit.
 
Annie said:
Are you agreeing with the point I made there?
Click to expand...
I agree that it is wrong to make a global condemnation of a large group - based on the actions of a very small group, who are not representative of the large group. That is what I was (and am) agreeing to.Nothing else.
Annie said:
The question is why should the non-criminal activities of some groups of people be disrespected while those of others allowed?
Click to expand...
Because there is a world of difference between sitting in a church or a rock concert, where the people are up close for an extended period of time, and walking around in a supermarket or a casino, where there is no extended contact. And yet, I just came back from shopping and the stated policy that everyone, employees, customers and vendors are REQUIRED to wear a mask.

Personally, I could not care less. If people want to engage in a behavior, which is dangerous for them, let them do it. The only problem is that they endanger others. Not to wear a seat belt, or parachute diving only endangers the person, and if they die, the gene-pool will come off better. Going to a concert or a packed rally also endangers others, and THAT is why it should not be allowed. What is do hard to understand it?
 
And to think.

Americans trying to worship God are getting arrested for contravening such mandates
that are not even “laws”
but mere “executive orders” by Democrat Governors!

Couple that to no science and very little common sense.

Since the virus is not going away, there is no sign that this power grab will EVER END
unless they change their policies.

Change their policies by Democrats waking up (?),
or change their policies via the courts (this is the most likely scenario).

After these policies change, there will be a few hysterical frenetic vocal fanatics saying how the whole country is going to be dead from COVID in a matter of weeks.

But when the country sees the same
type of no-mandate outcome (which is a ho hummer like Sweden has had - see this here for example), people will begin to again ignore the hysterical types.

Then the same hysterical people sensing irrelevancy will move on to warn about the planet is cooking away before your very eyes and the whole planet as we know it, will be gone in seven short more years.

Or how the ocean will be running down the streets of New York City any day now (ignoring the fact that Obama is buying Martha’s Vineyard property, Al Gore has
spent millions on a Malibu Beach Oceanfront home,
the Chinese and the Israelis are building man-made small Military Islands
to put their National Defense equipment on, etc.).

It just never quits with the leftists.
 
Last edited:
I wish masks were normalized and used during every cold and flue season,
all people who are sick should stay home or wear a mask when out and running errands.
 
Anonkun said:
The pandemic will never totally be eliminated, and there will likely be decades of resurgence scares to come. The question is, how long will government and media hype be able to justify a radical restructuring of Americans’ daily lives?
Click to expand...
As long as the Democrats (if they take power) want to keep churches closed and the people dependent on the government.
Zake said:
Let’s see those principles. The “evil leftists are the spawn of the devil, who want to rob you of your freedom to worship, who want to take all your moneys away and spend it on abortion clinics. Who want to change our free life to fascistic communism, and also want thought control, like in 1984. And, of course they want to get together in some pizza parlor to engage in satanic child abuse and cannibalism”. Do I read you correctly?
Click to expand...
I think you went off the high side with cannibalism and satanic child abuse.
 
Motherwit said:
There’s never been a deadly disease that’s been permanent.
Click to expand...
To my understanding, all have been permanent except smallpox. Polio, rubella, pneumonia, ebola, marburg, hantavirus, plague, leprosy, tuberculosis and many more…all are still around.
 
I don’t know what Qanon says about such things, and don’t much care.
 
Trying to be funny, but obviously it fell flat. He didn’t initially identify it as from Qanon.
 
Zake said:
And yet, I just came back from shopping and the stated policy that everyone, employees, customers and vendors are REQUIRED to wear a mask.
Click to expand...
Why are you flipping to mask-wearing? The issue was that churches, no matter the size, were limited to having only 50 people, while casinos were allowed a number in accord with their square footage.

It’s not like people can’t wear masks in church as they do in the grocery store.

So why allow a venue in which people drink copiously and hang around for hours to allow people in in the basis of area, but limit churches, where people will at most have a sip of wine and are scheduled for (usually) an hour or a little more, no matter the size, to 50 people? is there some form of logic I am missing?
 
Annie said:
Why are you flipping to mask-wearing? The issue was that churches, no matter the size, were limited to having only 50 people, while casinos were allowed a number in accord with their square footage.
Click to expand...
I already explained it.
 
because people are required to wear masks while shopping?

That makes no sense. Masking is not a part of this issue at all.
 
Annie said:
because people are required to wear masks while shopping?

That makes no sense. Masking is not a part of this issue at all.
Click to expand...
I guess, I have to explain it again. The CHANCE of getting infected is higher if
  1. you are in a large crowd for an extended period of time.
  2. no social distancing (the crowd is densely packed).
  3. few people wear masks.
The chance has a stochastic relationship with these factors, but not a deterministic one. (If you know what that means.) In a casino these criteria do not apply, at a rally they do. Also in a grocery store they do not apply, but it is STILL a great idea to wear masks, so that the chance of infection is still lower. Besides the employees are there for an extended period of time, and the management is concerned about THEIR well being, too.

Quite unlike the Trump rallies, especially when the factors above are aggravated by extreme temperatures from freezing to scalding. Trump does not care about the well being of his own supporters, so why do you think that he cares about YOUR well being?

Wearing masks, keeping social distance and sanitizing are NOT SILVER BULLETS. They merely lower the chance of infections. And every little bit helps.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying. What I am talking about is that there were unequal standards applied to casinos and churches in terms of the number of people they could contain.

I am not complaining that churches were prohibited from carrying on as usual, but that different standards were applied to churches and casinos.

I do not understand why you keep bringing in all these other issues.

Imagine a group of people in a Church. They maintain social distancing, they wear masks, they are there for an hour or so. But even in a very large church which could hold, say, 150 people while maintaining social distancing, they are limited to 50.

At the same time, a casino with the same square footage is permitted to allow 150 people, all wearing masks, but they are wandering around, they are drinking, they are leaving and others are replacing them, they are staying for longer than an hour or so, and it is casinos which are permitted to have that many people while churches are limited.

This all has nothing to do with making or social distancing, but about how many people are permitted to occupy the space at any given time, and the fact that the churches were treated differently and that this difference was unfair to them and to churchgoers when compared to casinos.
 
Annie said:
At the same time, a casino with the same square footage is permitted to allow 150 people, all wearing masks, but they are wandering around, they are drinking, they are leaving and others are replacing them, they are staying for longer than an hour or so, and it is casinos which are permitted to have that many people while churches are limited.
Click to expand...
You just mentioned the important part, which is the constant wandering around. The rule is to protect the churchgoers, not to penalize them.
 
you think people wander about in church more than they do in casinos?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top