Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 9:19:29 AM

At least according to two studies, one at MIT and the other at Stanford.  I have to say I was a little surprised at the MIT study on social distancing.  They concluded that when we exhale the warm air rises and distributes around the room and the risk of being exposed is about the same up to 60 feet away.  They concluded that the length of exposure was the key, not the distance.  Also said that fresh air in a room was more effective than fancy filters, which is common sense.  They concluded that masks made no difference in infection rates and had the data to prove it.  Also skewered the people wearing masks outdoors as completely unnecessary.

As for the Stanford study, they concluded what I have been saying all along.  Masks provide no protection from infection, including the kind worn by medical personnel.  It was a pretty brutal assessment of the science of masks and covered all the essential points I have made over the last year.  They also focused on the deletrious effects of masks and concluded they not only have no value in preventing infection but have negative impacts in other ways.  Follow the science or follow unelected bureaucrats.....it's a free country.  Me, I'll follow the science.  

But hey, that's just Stanford and MIT scientists.....what do they know anyway, right?  We've got Dr. Fauci who has pretty much taken every position on every issue and changed course multiple times.  Wonder if Dementia Joe is getting tired of his waffling yet.  Nah.....Joe probably doesn't even remember his name.  Speaking of Joe, seen him lately?  Yup...me neither.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 10:41:31 AM

The one Gotha that I hope the studies addressed is the "I'm wearing the mask  because I care so much about you and dont want to spread virus to you.  I know it might not keep me safe but keeps you safer". I say BS to that but have not seen study against.  What do you think?  I saw the MIT study and shared it but basically sarcastically said same thing.....what do they know.  We must keep.listening to Dr. AllOverThePlace.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 12:05:19 PM

Sadly the science tells us that wearing a mask neither protects you nor anyone else.  It is a classic case of virtue signaling about an issue that people feel the need and desire to do something, anything to show they care regardless of whether it actually accomplishes anything.  I have been warning people for a year about the false sense of security masks provide and have been advocating for social distancing, hygiene, etc.  Turns out I was right on the former and wrong on the latter.  I knew the masks provided very little protection based on my own experience in the environmental business and the fact that I suffer from CFS....common f'ing sense.  When people say they will wear the face diaper because it "might" help I want to bang my head on the desk.  The science says it won't but people are so illiterate that they will grasp at anything.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 1:08:56 PM

Do these two studies speak to the ineffectiveness both ways?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 1:25:26 PM (updated 4/27/2021 1:28:25 PM)

The Stanford study looked more closely at the masks than the MIT study which focused on social distancing (but likewise concluded no difference in transmission with or without masks).  I think I have stated this before but there is no difference coming and going.  The primary transport mechanism for the virus is through airborne particles.  The size of the virus particles is roughly 1,000 times smaller than the opening size in even the N95 masks and probably much worse in the cloth ones.  And that doesn't include the particles that escape through the sides of the mask, which are a substantial source of transport.  So if you have the virus and are still breathing the virus particles will pass through the mask and escape from around the sides, rise up because they are warmer and move around a room.  And if you happen to be wearing a mask and those particles get into your breathing zone they will pass through the mask and enter around the sides and you will inhale them. 

The idea that you wear a mask to protect others makes no scientific sense.  And wearing a mask to protect yourself from others likewise makes no scientific sense.  What the masks do is reduce the amount of droplets should you cough or sneeze.  However, those droplets have very little transport capability due to their size and covering your mouth will accomplish the same thing.  And as recent guidance from the CDC indicates, there is very little potential for transmission on surfaces. Basically everything we have been told has been proven to be wrong.

The best thing people can do to reduce transmission is to stay home if you are feeling any symptoms.  And no, asymptomatic carriers have never been demonstrated in any study to be a significant source of transmission.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 8:42:35 PM

Today's total from Google....32,000,000 cases in US with 573,000 deaths. 1.8% of those with COVID died. 10% of the population contracted the virus.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 9:03:51 PM

Wearing masks all the time.   Your stats might be the third proof study of how they dont work

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	AR = 1:55! Watch it GF
Date:	4/27/2021 10:12:25 PM

Old cuff links CRD will soon be giving you a puffed up tutorial using $64 words to illustrate your faulty math skills!  LOL

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/27/2021 10:25:28 PM

https://thenewamerican.com/faucis-niaid-scientists-attended-wuhan-lab-summit-now-scrubbed-from-internet/

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!!!
Date:	4/27/2021 10:43:06 PM (updated 4/27/2021 11:06:42 PM)

Folks don't automatically accept what MM says as true.  It usually isn't

See Forbes Sr. contributor Bruce Y Lee...4/22/21 and Rick Rouan USA Today....4/26/21

It seems the study from Stanford / NIH demonstrating Masks are not effective and in fact might be harmful is actually not from Stanford, not actually a study and does not show masks to be ineffective or harmful.  It was actually an article a ''clinical exercise physiologist, Barych Vainshelboim PHD published in the Jan issue of Jouirnal of Medical Hypotheses which is a journal known for publishing ''fringe science'' and which even says it's purpose is ''to publish interesting theoretical papers''.  Dr Vainshelboim is not affiliated with Stanford or NIH.  Stanford spokesperson states ''He was a a one year visiting scholar at Stanford in 2016 on matters unrelated to the subject of the paper.''  Stanford has issued a statement disvowing the claims of Dr Vainshelboim, asking him to correct the record and saying that the overwhelming evidence is that masks are an effective way to slow the spread of Covid.

When I have the time I will do a little research on MM's MIT claims.  I expect a similar outcome.  Sure wish you too gullible anti-science Trump Cultist would occasionally show a little initive to get to the truth for yourselves.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	MORE.....WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!!!
Date:	4/28/2021 12:14:04 AM

This statement from the authors of the MIT report seems to disagree with Martini's post. Maybe, he can help us with an explanation.

"The value of social distancing in limiting COVID-19 transmission by respiratory jets is made clear in the last section of our paper, 'Beyond the well-mixed room,'" they said. "Our study highlights that face masks can be an extremely effective indoor safety measure."

Martini or MIT???

Name:	MountainMan -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 1:26:05 AM

I had heard there was a resurgence in the John Birch society - just hadn't seen anyone actually spew anything from it. Not surprised at the source. Some things are better left a part of history. 

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 7:37:12 AM

So you trust Fauci more than the information in the article?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Not surprised, thanks
Date:	4/28/2021 9:21:41 AM (updated 4/28/2021 9:27:25 AM)

Folks just because you want it to be true or just because your ''hero'' or one of his supporters says it is true, doesn't make it true!! There are no ''alternative facts''!  Truth is undiluted by politics, religion, or wishes.

Name:	MountainMan -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 9:34:15 AM

No credibility to any publication owned by JBS. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/28/2021 10:22:01 AM

Google is not your friend in this and most cases.....unless you like to be misinformed.  The mortality rate is closer to 0.02% and maybe less.  Dividing the number of deaths by the recovered/discharged is not the mortality rate.....not even close.  But blindly follow Google and you get the opportunity to post something foolish.

But more to the point, I thought masks and social distancing would have ended this by now....if they work, right?  But strangely enough there appears to be no correlation with their usage and the number of infections.  How very odd, if they work, right?  Follow the science Goofy..science is real so says the left wing nut signs.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Poor Martini Needs More Schooling
Date:	4/28/2021 3:48:45 PM

How did you come up with .02% of what? .02% of 330,000,000 is 66,000 while .2% is 660,000 ...I think you need a math course in decimals before you tell me how to look at mortality. The percent of deaths 573,000 of total population based on the new census is .17%.

I hope you do better with decimals when bidding on projects.

I stand by my number that approx. 1.8% of reported cases died.  Why do you question dividing deaths by cases reported?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Goofy is missing the point
Date:	4/28/2021 4:22:51 PM (updated 4/28/2021 4:23:50 PM)

My math is flawless because I am actually looking at the real numbers that really matter.  The real mortality rate is around 0.2% (yes, I mistyped it with an extra zero) which is consistent with the ordinary flu mortality rate.  Your number is utterly meaningless because it tells us nothing.  What people want to know and what decisions should be based on is this question: If I am infected with the ChiCom virus what is the potential mortality rate?  Answer overall is 0.2%.  But if you are over age 65, are obese, have hypertension, COPD or other co-morbidities you are at greater risk of succumbing to the virus.  If you are young and healthy your chances of dying are near on zero.   

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 6:49:04 PM

So more credibility to Fauci?

Name:	MountainMan -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 9:07:54 PM

This is not about Dr Fauchi, it's about you. Citing discredited sources like Alex Jones and John Birch Society. Are you old enough to remember when JBS took its tumble and why?  And do you embrace that?  Certainly it's OK if you do  - that's what makes our country what it is - but it would help to understand your oversll thinking on so many issues. 

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 9:34:10 PM

Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
? Robert A Heinlein

The name Anthony Fauci belongs in the same category as Josef Mengele.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Shorty, I generally don't buy into your conspiracy
Date:	4/28/2021 10:29:23 PM (updated 4/28/2021 10:31:13 PM)

stuff, but when you add context it sometimes makes more sense to us on the sidelines.  My fear is that we are creating a population of lemmings that will accept whatever the "gubment" says we must accept, without realizing that "the gubment" is nothing more than a group of individual people who have and yield more power than they deserve.  I have lived in that world and can tell you they ain't that much smarter than we are (and maybe not as smart), and indeed don't understand how the world turns in the wheat fields of Kansas, the pecan groves of Georgia, the rice fields of Arkansas, or the garlic fields of Gilroy, California.  It is a shame but the clueless are making policy for those who are the backbone of this once fine, and hopefully, will be again, bedrock of how to do it right.  

Name:	MountainMan -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/28/2021 10:52:10 PM

You could have just said yes, I buy into all the things they espouse. Wow, that's a heck if a  statement.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	MARTINI....Why Don't You Answer Goofy??????????
Date:	4/29/2021 12:42:36 AM (updated 4/29/2021 12:55:28 AM)

Inorder to pass Math 101 at the Church School, you need to show the actual numbers you used. Throwing out .02% and then .2% means nothing without the numbers used to calculate it. Give us the actual numbers....I assume you did not make them up.

What is your source for the numbers you used? As I stated previously, mine were from Google which updates daily.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Heinlein
Date:	4/29/2021 6:22:53 AM

Didn't know you were a Heinlein fan shorty.  I like you even more now.  I think the man was psychic.  Time Enough for Love is my favorite and there is more wisdom in the Excerts From the Notebook of Lazurus Long than most scholary screeds. Including my favorite and oft used here "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".  There is also great marital advice also i.e.; "Tell her she is beautiful everyday, especially if she is not"; "Rub her feet", just to name a couple.

I read his books in my teens and 20's, have re-read some since then.

This one I have to paraphrase because I can't quote exactly but really close and is included just to trigger archie:

Get one shot off fast, this will startle your opponent and give you time to make the second one count.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Shorty, I generally don't buy into your conspiracy
Date:	4/29/2021 8:49:31 AM

You just said      Gubment is force, not reason.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Birchers are Back
Date:	4/29/2021 9:03:29 AM (updated 4/29/2021 9:18:51 AM)

Certainly I don't believe ALL they espouse.

But I believe NOTHING from MSNBS.  There are multiple lies in each sentence.

My links are put up for your consideration as a favor from me to you.

Ignoring it considerately might be better than attacking the piano player.

BUT you have the CHOICE to read it or not.  Not an option with the mind numbing talking heads on the brain sucker. (TV)

To help the mentally challenged with an example:

https://www.infowars.com/posts/uk-christian-pastor-arrested-for-saying-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/

Do you think this happened pretty much the way they say it?

Do you think MSNBS would present this to you for consideration?

Where else are you going to see this type of journalism?

BTW, this is about the point where I arrest the police.  Onward Christian soldiers.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	GOOFY.....I did but I guess I need to dumb it down
Date:	4/29/2021 9:31:11 AM (updated 4/29/2021 10:47:12 AM)

Goofy, even the CDC has the mortality rate for the Wuhan virus as 0.4%.  Look it up on Goolge. I believe this is at least twice the actual rate for the following reasons: 1) the actual number of cases of the virus is far higher than reported since this has likely been around since the fall of 2019 and like many people that get the flu, it is never reported to any agency; and 2) the number of deaths attributed to the virus has been debunked over and over again.  Anyone who had the virus when they died, whether it had to anything to do with their death or not were counted.  And in fact, many were included that didn't even have the virus but just had antibodies.  My 0.2% is probably on the high end.

So just to mollify you, I will accept the CDC mortality rate of 0.4% which is exactly, according to my math 4.5 times lower than your number.  Like I said, Google isn't your friend when you don't understand the data and how things actually work in the real world.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Masks and Social Distancing Don't Work
Date:	4/29/2021 10:21:16 AM

$39,000 if they were put on a ventilator.

https://www.wnd.com/2021/04/recorded-murdering-patients-covid-nurse-goes-public-shocker/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=8f0f31e51307de3cf7a69311bae87aa2

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Martini....Dumb As It Can Be
Date:	4/29/2021 11:16:00 AM

Here are the numbers from CDC.....

578,421 Deaths

31,976,888 Total Cases

Do you agree with these numbers or do they differ from yours??

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	OMG! Are you really that dense???
Date:	4/29/2021 12:15:51 PM

Never mind....we already know.  Thise are the numbers that you can get from Worldometer, Johns Hopkins or CDC.....but they have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the mortality rate.  Since you apprently have the ability to access the CDC website how about share with us the mortality rate as determined by CDC.  Then when you do that I will educate you as to why the numbers you keep using are meaningless as to the danger of the ChiCom virus.  Which of course is what you implied with your oriiginal post that way overstated the actual danger of this particular virus.  It is no worse than the ordinary flu when it comes to mortality.  The main difference is where the mortality is focused.....on the elderly and those with co-morbidities.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	OMG! Are you really that dense???
Date:	4/29/2021 12:31:41 PM (updated 4/29/2021 12:39:12 PM)

Here is the site from CDC. I am using their numbers. What numbers are you using to calculate .2%? Where did you get your number of .2%? Where did you find CDC at .4% (Goofy, even the CDC has the mortality rate for the Wuhan virus as 0.4%).

Just provide thr numbers you used to reach .2% and the site.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	OMG! Are you really that dense???
Date:	4/29/2021 1:24:10 PM

Do your own research and if you find another number for the mortality rate at the CDC I am all ears.  Just make sure you stay current because they have been all over the place but one thing that has been consistent is that every time a new number comes out it is lower.

And since you are so fixated on where your numbers came from I am going to once again type really slowly and in caps so you will finally, maybe, hopefully understand my very salient point...but I doubt it.  YOUR NUMBERS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF MORTALITY AND THE NUMBER OF CASES ARE TOO LOW AND THE NUMBERS OF DEATHS ARE TOO HIGH.  For all the reasons I have already pointed out.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	MARTINI is avoiding the facts
Date:	4/29/2021 1:42:52 PM

Why are you so afraid to show us where you got your .2%. You may be correct but not according to the CDC. Show us your source?

Show the actual numbers...deaths and those positive. Did you make them up? I would like to accept your dramatically lower number but need to see how you reached .2%.

Just the numbers...

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sigh.......
Date:	4/29/2021 1:52:27 PM

Goofy....I already told you I halved the CDC rate because of the issues I discussed and also stated it was likely on the high side.  For crying out loud, please learn to read simple English.  

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sigh.......
Date:	4/29/2021 2:13:49 PM

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-us-cases-deaths.html

Accuracy of Data

CDC tracks COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to monitor trends, detect where outbreaks are occurring, and determine whether public health measures are working. However, counting exact numbers of COVID-19 cases is not possible because COVID-19 can cause mild illness, symptoms might not appear immediately, there are delays in reporting and testing, not everyone who is infected gets tested or seeks medical care, and there are differences in how completely states and territories report their cases.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sigh.......
Date:	4/29/2021 2:42:58 PM

Here is the mindset of people like Goofy.....and there are a lot of them.  They blindly believe everything written by a govt agency and question anything, no matter how logical, written by someone with whom they disagree politically.  They literally cannot think for themselves so its no wonder they don't think blacks or Hispanics are smart enough to show an ID to vote.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sigh.......
Date:	4/29/2021 2:47:19 PM

And just think they call the rest of us a "cult"  ROFLMAO

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Masks Don't Work
Date:	4/29/2021 3:03:10 PM

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

Conclusion

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.

Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Martini and His Fake Numbers
Date:	4/29/2021 3:08:37 PM

Show me the CDC site for the .4%. You then decided to take 1/2. OK show me where you got the .4%. That is not difficult since you read it online. You want us to believe your number. As a scientist, one would expect you to produce your data for your post of .4% from CDC.

If you just made it up....tell us.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Since you love the media so much
Date:	4/29/2021 3:21:37 PM

Here is something from the USA Today, a liberal leftist rag (emphasis added).

In May, the CDC published a document titled "Pandemic Planning Scenarios," with estimates about the virus to help modelers and public health officials. It included estimates of the death rate for infected people who show symptoms and of the percentage of people who were infected but asymptomatic.

The document includes five scenarios. The first four are varying estimates of the disease's severity, from low to high, while the fifth represents the "current best estimate."

The range of estimates put the fatality rate for those showing symptoms between 0.2%-1%, with a "best estimate" of 0.4%.

By combining the two estimates, the estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus – with and without symptoms – would be 0.26%.

According to NPR, the CDC has revised the estimate downward from its estimate in mid-April. Internal versions of the CDC scenario documents acquired by the Center for Public Integrity show that on April 14, the CDC had estimated a 0.33% fatality rate. That was up from a March 31 estimate of 0.16%.

DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE STUPID QUESTIONS?????????  You would think you would have learned by now not to question me about things like this.  Like I told you, taking the number of deaths and cases from these Google derived websites and repesenting them as the risk an individual has to dying from the virus is medically, scientifically and logically stupid.....which is why it made sense to you.  If you want to go to the CDC website and find the document please do so. I literally cannot wait for your analysis. /sarc

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Martini and His Fake Numbers
Date:	4/29/2021 3:22:01 PM

https://greatgameindia.com/tanzania-kicks-out-who-after-goat-papaya-samples-came-covid-19-positive/

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Like I said.....
Date:	4/29/2021 3:43:20 PM

Why the left is so adament about holding onto this mask thing should tell you something about them when it comes to science.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Like I said.....
Date:	4/29/2021 3:55:46 PM (updated 4/29/2021 3:56:03 PM)

Its not about the science is about control and virtue signaling.

"Look at me I am saving your life by wearing this face diaper" 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Well my data finally shut him up
Date:	5/1/2021 3:37:44 PM

Thank the good Lord....sad it took the USA Today to finally get Goofy to call it quits.  Don't doubt me Goofy.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Not really MM
Date:	5/2/2021 2:59:26 PM (updated 5/2/2021 3:04:59 PM)

Some peolpe are just don't see the need to continue to engage a flat-earther that has a tendancy on some subjects to be dumb as a box of rocks and who wouldn't admit the truth even when he knows the truth unless it aligns with his extreme political agenda.  The bottom line  remains as it has been during this entire thread....using the CDC's CURRENT on the ground running statisics (not 12 month old projections) the percentage of those who test positive for COVID who eventually die from it is 1.8%.  A figure which has held pretty steady for over 8 months.  If you have your head so far up Trump's fanny you can't see the obvious staring in your face, then it is your and Trump's problem, not GF's

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I stand corrected.....he came back for more
Date:	5/3/2021 9:28:51 AM

See above.  His ability to be humiliated is seemingly endless.