patrick.net

Most of the comments in this thread aren't about propaganda people have witnessed, but arguing in support of the propaganda when it's brought up. Seems like the point has been missed, or some people are so threatened by anything they believe being pointed out as propaganda, they have to lash out and turn the conversation into a soup of incoherence.

And since I don't want to contribute, here's an example of the most blatant propaganda I've ever seen:

When you enter a restaurant, wearing any random piece of cloth over your mouth and nose will protect you from disease. But that protection isn't necessary when you sit down at a table in the restaurant. The germs will completely avoid your table area until you have finished eating, drinking, and talking. And of course paid your check. Then the disease will again attack, so put your mask back on before leaving.

NuttBoxer says

When you enter a restaurant, wearing any random piece of cloth over your mouth and nose will protect you from disease. But that protection isn't necessary when you sit down at a table in the restaurant. The germs will completely avoid your table area until you have finished eating, drinking, and talking. And of course paid your check. Then the disease will again attack, so put your mask back on before leaving.

Mostly but not entirely true if you want to play devil's advocate. The idea behind this is that you socialize with handpicked friends you either deem safe or worthy to get infected by, while when you walk around passing strangers amd other tables you would want to minimize germ exchange. It's still stupid as fuck but is based on the idea of social distancing with a small party of "vetted" people at the table and wearing a mask among strangers.

So the germs only live in our mouths and nose, and the random piece of cloth guarantees they stay there? The propaganda angles here are endless.

NuttBoxer says

So the germs only live in our mouths and nose, and the random piece of cloth guarantees they stay there? The propaganda angles here are endless.

It appears that you need to be enlightened on very basic stuff.

Virus is indeed smaller than openings in a mask. Which is why we have that cute meme with one person wearing a mask and another person building a wire fence against mosquitos, with implication that they are equally likely to succeed. The meme authors apparently didn't realize that virus doesn't get transmitted in isolation. It gets spread within droplets of bodily fluids. And those droplets are for the most part greater in size than openings in the mask, and may be stopped. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

See, real reason to be anti-mask is that they cause social and psychological issues, and possibly health issues related to respiratory conditions or environments with high performance demands. Those tradeoffs are no longer justified (not sure if they ever were).

NuttBoxer says

So the germs only live in our mouths and nose, and the random piece of cloth guarantees they stay there? The propaganda angles here are endless.

It's practically impossible to reduce exposure since most do everything wrong anyways, but if n95 and up and worn correctly and with tables enough apart and proper ventilation it may make a difference. Again, practically useless though. But I agree that this is part of propaganda to divide. If you're afraid of life then stay home, order everything online and netfucks and chill. Don't ruin life for others, but propaganda is always aimed at dividing people

I! HATE! THE! FUCKING! MASKS!

mostly reader says

Virus is indeed smaller than openings in a mask. Which is why we have that cute meme with one person wearing a mask and another person building a wire fence against mosquitos, with implication that they are equally likely to succeed. The meme authors apparently didn't realize that virus doesn't get transmitted in isolation. It gets spread within droplets of bodily fluids. And those droplets are for the most part greater in size than openings in the mask, and may be stopped. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

The Masks Don't Fucking Work.

We had good reason to suspect the Masks Didn't Fucking Work to begin with: Almost every study and survey of mask wearing, much of it recent and with other respiratory viruses in crowded Asian cities, showed a statistically insignificant relationship between mask wearing and infection.

In fact, Jan-Mar 2020, there were a shitload of articles downplaying the wearing of masks, and insinuating that it was "Anti-Asian" to boot.

Now we KNOW the masks don't fucking work, the empirical data is overwhelming both inside and among various countries with various policies. Neither did lockdowns.

We also KNOW the vaccine is fucking dangerous for some, particularly kids, far outweighing the benefits of having them.

Frankly, not putting a freeze on vaccines to those under 30 and healthy - staring Yesterday - is irresponsible and dangerous.

> AmericanKulak
You should understand the difference between these 2 statements:
1) Masks don't work
and
2) "In fact, Jan-Mar 2020, there were a shitload of articles downplaying the wearing of masks"

The second one seems consistent with my message. You should understand why.

The first one isn't, and from what I know it's just false.

You crumbled them both into one narrative.

Unless you have a reasonable resource to show that exposure in same controlled environment is the same. Do you? I doubt it.

mostly reader says

Unless you have a reasonable resource to show that exposure in same controlled environment is the same. Do you? I doubt it.

Public health doesn't take place in a controlled test environment.

We have real life, real world data that trumps controlled studies.

My view is the correct view, and has been offered endlessly on this site, esp. by Patrick and others, so I await your abundant evidence that Mask Wearing reduced COVID transmission outside of the Margin of Error consistently. One major problem for you will be to explain why US states with stricter lockdown and mask rules, that lasted far longer, had death rates worse than states that had lighter rules and ended them sooner. NY vs. FL is one. The latter having a higher percentage of aged people to boot.

AmericanKulak says

We have real life, real world data that trumps controlled studies.

Show them.
Keep in mind that I'll drill into other variables of a hypothetical study, just to be sure that there's no bias (*)

AmericanKulak says

My view is the correct view

What exactly is your view? That mask or no mask, exposure to self and to those around is the same? Are we clear on that?

* Note: I at this time am an anti-mask person

mostly reader says

AmericanKulak says

We have real life, real world data that trumps controlled studies.

Show them.
Keep in mind that I'll drill into other variables of a hypothetical study, just to be sure that there's no bias (*)

AmericanKulak says

My view is the correct view

What exactly is your view? That mask or no mask, exposure to self and to those around is the same? Are we clear on that?

* Note: I at this time am an anti-mask person

Nope: the burden of proof is on you. You're making the extraordinary claim, so pony up the extraordinary data.


Cloth Masks, don't work - though we knew this in Early 2020.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/experts-warn-that-cloth-masks-don-t-work-again-recommend-tests/ar-AAS3Wmn?source=patrick.net
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bangladesh-study-proves-masks-dont?s=r

https://dossier.substack.com/p/tragic-shooting-of-american-journalist?s=r&source=patrick.net

There’s just one big problem with that narrative.

All of the available evidence we have points to the Ukrainians, not the Russians, being responsible for the tragic shooting of Renaud.

This morning, Renaud and his crew, which had been contracted with Time Magazine, were traveling through the outskirts of Kiev, Ukraine’s capital city, and on their way to document the plight of the refugee situation. ...

But since the initial Ukrainian PR campaign, compelling evidence, in addition to multiple eyewitness testimony, has emerged to tell a very different story of the day’s events.

The Real Story

Shortly after the incident occurred, a video was posted to social media, with Renaud’s body on display in the background. In the video (CONTENT WARNING), a Ukrainian soldier says the shooting occurred in the settlement of Romanovka. ...

The location of the incident is very significant, because it established that the shooting took place well within a swath of territory that remains within the lines controlled by Ukrainian forces. Now, it’s certainly possible that troop movements shifted in those early hours, but there is no documented evidence of Russian troops being anywhere near the crime scene, before during, or after the incident. The Russians have in recent days repeatedly shelled the entire area, but Renaud was killed by nearby gunfire. ...

Another major piece of information came out earlier this evening, when The New York Times confirmed that the incident occurred at a Ukrainian checkpoint. ...

Arrendondo, who is by far our most reliable source for this incident, makes it clear that the shooting came from the direction of the checkpoint. And The New York Times, backed by other sources, have established the area as a Ukrainian checkpoint. And in addition to that, the most recent maps of troop positions show the scene of the crime as an area that remains controlled by Ukrainian forces.

In all likelihood, Brent Renaud was killed by Ukrainian forces. And instead of taking responsibility for the tragic shooting, the Ukrainians used Renaud’s death as an instrument to advance a propaganda campaign against their enemy.

AmericanKulak says

Nope: the burden of proof is on you.

Fare enough. Pick one.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7?source=patrick.net
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd3083?source=patrick.net - kinda watered-down for easier consumption
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07291?source=patrick.net - this one is more specific towards mask shapes and diameters

AmericanKulak says

Cloth Masks, don't work - though we knew this in Early 2020. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/experts-warn-that-cloth-masks-don-t-work-again-recommend-tests/ar-AAS3Wmn

I ask for a study and you point me to msn site which refers to experts?? WTF??? Are we seriously considering "experts" now, the same experts who discredited themselves time and over again? And you refer me to MSN to boot???

There are 2 parts to the point:
1) Masks indeed work in lab environment
2) Life is not lab environment.

You fail to understand that the 2 parts may both be valid and say stupid shit.

https://thegoodcitizen.substack.com/p/ukrainian-white-helmets?s=r&source=patrick.net

The latest maternity hospital “Russian Bombing” in Mariupol has a lot of the same staged appearances of the Syrian war propaganda. A bomb crater in the middle of the square. Crisis actors looking at the cameras and playing their roles. There was video of buckets of fake blood inside the hospital and later Russian soldiers who overtook that position showed Ukrainian forces had used the hospital to stash armaments.

mostly reader says

but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

So you've been to lab controlled restaurants?

mostly reader says

and possibly health issues related to respiratory conditions or environments with high performance demands.

You breathe your own CO2 all day, possible is an understatement. The first thing I heard about, second hand, but related by someone I trust. People where coming in with a significant increase in mouth diseases and cavities. Second thing is again second hand, but family, so I trust them. Boyfriend got a blood test, and had significant increase in CO2 levels in his blood. Anyone relying on a mask to keep them healthy is already sick, and scared.

Patrick says

Another major piece of information came out earlier this evening, when The New York Times confirmed that the incident occurred at a Ukrainian checkpoint. ...

@Patrick

You are copy/pasting selectively. Here's an important bit:

“We crossed the checkpoint and they started shooting at us,” Arrendondo started. “So the driver turned around, and they kept shooting at us … I saw him being shot in the neck, and we got split, and I got pulled into the … ambulance, I don’t know.”

From this, it seems to me that they CROSSED the checkpoint, at which point they were shot at, at which point they TURNED AROUND. (back towards the checkpoint, I assume, which rules out the possibility that the checkpoint was shooting at them)

This makes it look like they weren't shot at from the checkpoint. On the contrary to what this "dossier" guy on substack says.

Unless I'm missing something, WTF? And WTF is this dossier.substack guy who can't put 2 and 2 together?

NuttBoxer says

So you've been to lab controlled restaurants?

I made it abundantly, ABUNDANTLY clear that I understand the difference between lab and real life and that my reasoning factors it in.

Are you saying that you haven't seen it? Or that you didn't get it?

You'll see that the article says that the Russians were 2km away from that Ukrainian checkpoint. Does it say how far they drove after the checkpoint?

Patrick says

You'll see that the article says that the Russians were 2km away from that Ukrainian checkpoint.

The map shows 2km from the main forces. "The map" and "main forces" are important bits. In dynamic situation, it doesn't mean much.

But the fact that they turned around back towards the checkpoint means loads. Unless other info becomes available, I think that it seals the case. Again, who's this dossier.substack guy? He himself says that this comment about turning around is "the most important piece of testimony". Not realizing that it destroys his narrative instead of supporting it?

mell says

but if n95 and up and worn correctly and with tables enough apart and proper ventilation it may make a difference.

Unless it hermetically seals your face, it won't. You'd require a full hazmat suit all the time. The only exception would be if you had a laboratory you could go to, you could remove it then, after proper decontamination. Because what was released was a spike cell, and it attached to a very common form of the flu, it didn't matter. In a real pandemic, you'd see people in those N95's laying dead in the streets.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/update-american-reporter-brent-renaud-killed-ukrainian-checkpoint-behind-russian-front-likely-friendly-fire-incident/?source=patrick.net

Renaud was being shot at, turned around and continued to be shot at from the direction of the checkpoint.

Patrick says

Renaud was being shot at, turned around and continued to be shot at from the direction of the checkpoint.

gatewaypundit says that, but they are referring to dossier.substack Who in turn refers to witness testimony. But I don't see that witness testimony supports that. The witness uses "they" which makes it ambiguous. Then, turning car around takes time and makes it a sitting duck, that's not something you'd do to get closer to the side that's shooting at you. Not saying that it didn't happen, saying that the evidence that has been revealed so far doesn't support it.

mostly reader says

Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

No, this isn't true.

When you breathe, you're not just exhaling water vapor, you're expelling droplets formed by your alveoli. If your mask caught that, it would SOAKING WET in a matter of minutes. The droplets pass right through, well, not really, mostly around.

Ever done drywall were you used a sander to smooth over the patches? Ever notice you can TASTE it, and it's even chalky, even when you're wearing an N95 mask? Those are a LITTLE effective maybe, for DRYWALL particles but even they get through a bit. Those are relatively huge.

This is all bullshit, and our media just lies through its teeth, politicians lie, and people just inexplicably believe them now matter how many times they contradict themselves. They knew masks didn't work in the 1917-1919 pandemic - it's even thought that cloth masks (all they had at the time) may have contributed to people getting pneumonia.

mostly reader says

. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

Link to study please.

Or are you making shit up?

mostly reader says

Unless you have a reasonable resource to show that exposure in same controlled environment is the same. Do you? I doubt it.

OK. Forget the study. Link to your "resource" or you're making shit up.

mostly reader says

Show them.

Yes, show them!

Onvacation says

mostly reader says

. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

Link to study please.

Or are you making shit up?

I already provided a few in this thread: https://patrick.net/post/1344073&80#comment-1826854

Sheesh

mostly reader says

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7?source=patrick.net

From your article

Recent studies suggest that wearing face masks reduces the spread of COVID-19 on a population level and consequently blunts the growth of the epidemic curve (7, 8). Still, determining mask efficacy is a complex topic that is still an active field of research [see, for example, (9)], made even more complicated because the infection pathways for COVID-19 are not yet fully understood and are complicated by many factors such as the route of transmission, correct fit and usage of masks, and environmental variables. From a public policy perspective, shortages in supply for surgical face masks and N95 respirators, as well as concerns about their side effects and the discomfort of prolonged use (10), have led to public use of a variety of solutions that are generally less restrictive (such as homemade cotton masks or bandanas) but usually of unknown efficacy. While some textiles used for mask fabrication have been characterized (11), the performance of actual masks in a practical setting needs to be considered. The work we report here describes a measurement method that can be used to improve evaluation to guide mask selection and purchase decisions.

Can you link a study that actually shows that masks are effective against viruses?

The main purpose of masks is to dehumanize is.

mostly reader says

Onvacation says

mostly reader says

. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

Link to study please.

Or are you making shit up?

I already provided a few in this thread: https://patrick.net/post/1344073&80#comment-1826854

Sheesh

I looked up the first one - here's something I pulled out which kind of is saying "well, this was pretty pointless" - at least in my opinion.

The above studies all indicate a strong potential for masks to help reduce transmission of respiratory illnesses. To date, however, none have investigated the effectiveness of masks across a range of expiratory activities, and limited consideration has been given to different mask types. Furthermore, no studies to date have considered the masks themselves as potential sources of aerosol particles. It is well established that fibrous cellulosic materials, like cotton and paper, can release large quantities of micron-scale particles (i.e., dust) into the air39,40,41,42. Traditionally, these particles have not been considered a potential concern for respiratory viral diseases like influenza or now COVID-19, since these diseases have been thought to be transmitted via expiratory particles emitted directly from the respiratory tract of infected individuals43. Early work in the 1940s indicated, however, that infectious influenza virus could be collected from the air after vigorously shaking a contaminated blanket44. Despite this finding, over the next 70 years little attention focused on the possibility of respiratory virus transmission via environmental dust.

All they need is a control group.

There's states that had no mandates for the masks and some that didn't - the masks seemed largely worthless based on that. Florida has been over this nonsense for a long time.

Florida however, more sunshine than NYC. Should have just been a personal choice, stupid to make it a mandate. The people making the mandates sure as heck didn't believe the masks were useful.

Onvacation says

Can you link a study that actually shows that masks are effective against viruses?

You are moving the target. My statements are:

1) Masks indeed work in lab environment
2) Life is not lab environment.

I'm responsible only for what write. I'm not responsible for your mental process which transforms it into something else.

mostly reader says

> Onvacation

You are moving the target. My statements are:

1) Masks indeed work in lab environment
2) Life is not lab environment.

I'm responsible only for what write. I'm not responsible for your mental process which transforms it into something else.

So you're saying, "masks don't work in the real world"?

Agreed.

mostly reader says

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7?source=patrick.net

None of these are actual real world results on a public health level, but laboratory experiments.

A Public Health level study is "In DeBlasio Land, rigid mask wearing rules resulted in X rate of COVID (or Flu or any Respiratory Virus) cases vs. in DeSantis Land".

or "1000 people who wore masks had a rate of Flu infection of X, versus 985 people who didn't wear masks having a Flu infection rate of Y, over a 3 month, seasonal period."

Onvacation says

So you're saying, "masks don't work in the real world"?

I said nothing that would imply my understanding of how masks work - or don't - in real life. You are making shit up, again.

mostly reader says

I said nothing that would imply my understanding of how masks work

So do you think masks work to stop Wuhan contraction and spread or not?

It's quite amazing how people who try to challenge me on my masks comment literally repeat one of my points. While they think that they are arguing against me. Amazing.

Just so you know: in public, invalid argument that you make against masks immediately labels you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. This discredits your position and makes it a lot harder to submit valid argument.

mostly reader says

Just so you know: in public, invalid argument that you make against masks immediately labels you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

So you're saying, "masks do work in the real world"?

What are you saying?

I think masks are harmful in many ways. CO2 concentration, oxygen restriction, micro-expression suppression, dehumanization, and little effectiveness against viruses.

Can you clearly state your opinion on mask effectiveness in the real world? Not expecting corroborating evidence just curious about your opinion.