i saw you edited this, so i'll add. but i'm letting my prior comment stand to your pre-edit.
the 2 studies i saw that immediately piqued my interest are this case mentioned, which is an insane outlier. i'd have a feeling the constant washing of hands due to the job nature may have had quite an effect. but i do wish to go through that one in detail.
there was also study on the battleship, i am interested in the details there.

if you cannot acknowledge "any" faults to "any" of these studies, you aren't even looking for data. you are just looking for generic info. (which in "most" controlled settings, do not correlate with your studies i.e. any hospital setting)
they also do not correlate with the words of Fauci, who is the major advocate for mandates. to not find that odd?

I'm not interested in nitpicking individual studies. We have enough evidence that it's not useful. We have evidence from like a dozen methods of study, from direct examination of masking on droplets to epidemiological examination of spread, and they all show that masking reduces spread.

Once you have that kind of congruence nitpicking a study does nothing to change the conclusion. It would be akin to asking why Helium balloons float if gravity pulls things down.

Even against delta the vaccine is 95% effective at keeping people out of the hospital with Covid.

This information has been posted fucking everywhere, so you are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest.

Regarding the fear mongering, i think it helps people realize they may be overconfident in their ability to overcome the virus. I won't deny that there are many unknowns around the vaccines, but with everything we know to date, would you or would you not advise your parents to take the vaccine?

You should come to the discord in thors sig, we have doctors in there you can speak with directly about your vaccine specific concerns.

0.1% was referring to the masks and "aerosolic" spread. that's why i hate the words you and others use so generally. "spread" what form of spread is usually being referenced? is it droplets like you just pointed out? cover your mouth when you cough you pleb, same effect. and don't use your hands cause obvious.

also how effective is "not taking the vaccine" at keeping people out of the hospital? serious question. compare apples to apples.


i would not "advise" them to take any vaccine at this time under the EUA. however, they still have quite a few years left before they hit "high-risk".
"if" they were of that age already, i still would advise against it. there are medicines from what i hear that you can take during early stages to drastically decrease the risk of major complications and death. i'd prefer they were prescribed to something like that. so there is at least some legal leg to stand on in the future if need be.

for "this specific virus", since it has low mortality in middle-aged, non-high-risk people. and near zero risk to children without health issues.... i think it's best to build natural defenses while you can at those ages. because vaccinations will not always protect from variants, and natural immune vitality is hands-down a better defense than a vaccine can provide.
become reliant on a vaccine, become reliant for life.

btw, you all wouldn't want to listen to me. i don't speak until i literally blow up. then i ramble for 6 hours sounding like a high-octave alex jones.

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Aug 30 2021 11:14pm

Those sources contain old data from 2020, when we were dealing with the pre-Alpha strains which were roughly half as transmissible as Delta.
Genuine question, not a troll: does the higher viral load of Delta affect the effectiveness of masks?

According various studies, the viral load for Delta is between 300 (South Korean study) and 1000 (Chinese study) higher than for the original Wuhan strain from March 2020. Yet infectiousness is only roughly twice as high, which shows that there is no linear relationship between the viral load and transmissibility. My thought process is the following: when patients are shedding 300 to 1000 times more virus particles, there should be drastically more aerosols which are getting beyond the mask through the leaky face regions which are inevitable with cloth or surgical masks. Accordingly, this should drastically increase the likelihood that the concentration of the aerosol cloud reaches the threshold required for infection.

This is wrong and further shows your dishonesty. In the PDF I linked you it contained graphs showing size of particle and distance traveled during different activities, including sneezing, talking, and coughing, clearly showing there is spread when you are merely breathing and talking. So no, not the same effect, you pleb.

At least learn the basics of the subject before you talk down to people because you end up staying stupid shit like what you just posted.

When you are looking at effectiveness of containing spread you have to look at relative data. Masks reduce distance particles travel, so yes, it reduces delta's spread. It doesn't really matter how infectious the disease is, because it's based on particle dynamics, not viral infectivity.

The absolute value of Delta's spread will likely be higher with masking, but you will still see the same relative reduction. So if it reduced alpha's spread by 90% it would still reduce delta's spread by 90%, but delta would remain higher. So with alpha it would reduce the spread range from say 20 feet to 2 feet, and with delta it would reduce it from 90 feet to 9 feet, for example. Those numbers are arbitrary to show the point.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Aug 30 2021 11:48pm

i do not see a "distance travelled" graph, but these are relevant.


the second graph shows the number of emitted particles. whish is mostly at 1 or less when breathing. everything else includes more smaller particles, and adds some larger particles on just for kicks.
the first graph shows that "cloth masks" when "breathing" are 40% effective at best for the largest droplets, and the majority particles being smaller.... only account the mask being about 28% effective.

when you exert more energy by speaking, yelling, singing, or w/e. there are larger particles that the cloth mask can catch. but there are also a lot more smaller particles that's in the 28% effective.
which basically only gives further credit to my claims imo. that's a lot of aerosolic particles that cloth masks just do not work for. the majority of what is released according to the graph you showed me.

only graph i saw to show distance, was referring to being within 50cm of someone.
i'm still wondering why any of this is needed though if your vaccine works. they do work don't they?

edit: those graphs use a lot of wordplay.
"reductions as high as 50-70%"... when you are literally coughing into someone's mouth... sure, the cloth mask probably does stop 70% of the large stuff...

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Aug 31 2021 12:26am

and this is why it's really obvious you're dishonest, not just mistaken.

"Why would you have an alarm system if your door locks? Why would you have a gun if you have an alarm system?"

I just explained it to you, and you didn't take anything in from that very simple concept. If you can't even acknowledge that you want to use multiple layers of protection, why would I ever trust you to properly analyze data?

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Aug 31 2021 12:38am