Stanford study: Masks are very bad
#62
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
excargo…
You need to read my post with a more open mind.
It’s about the media coverage and what people call “science.”
As your fact post states, “the paper is a hypothesis…”
And that means it has some observable data to look at.
Please drag up from the deeply buried freshman science course and remember how one gets to a “hypothesis.”
There is just one problem these days in the media, for something to be true it has to be consistently repeatable in various situations and tests with similar and close results. Most “science” claims via media and the elect ignore the repeatability factor and their “hypothesis” are basically something they pulled out of their rear end.
Good luck to us all, Biden is truly making sure his “darkest days” hypothesis come true.
#64
excargo…
You need to read my post with a more open mind.
It’s about the media coverage and what people call “science.”
As your fact post states, “the paper is a hypothesis…”
And that means it has some observable data to look at.
Please drag up from the deeply buried freshman science course and remember how one gets to a “hypothesis.”
There is just one problem these days in the media, for something to be true it has to be consistently repeatable in various situations and tests with similar and close results. Most “science” claims via media and the elect ignore the repeatability factor and their “hypothesis” are basically something they pulled out of their rear end.
Good luck to us all, Biden is truly making sure his “darkest days” hypothesis come true.
You need to read my post with a more open mind.
It’s about the media coverage and what people call “science.”
As your fact post states, “the paper is a hypothesis…”
And that means it has some observable data to look at.
Please drag up from the deeply buried freshman science course and remember how one gets to a “hypothesis.”
There is just one problem these days in the media, for something to be true it has to be consistently repeatable in various situations and tests with similar and close results. Most “science” claims via media and the elect ignore the repeatability factor and their “hypothesis” are basically something they pulled out of their rear end.
Good luck to us all, Biden is truly making sure his “darkest days” hypothesis come true.
And whatinhell has Biden got to do with science?
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
#66
Speed, Power, Accuracy
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,699
And now MIT, that bastion of conservative thought.....has destroyed the notion of social distancing:
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Bizjet Captain
Posts: 251
And now MIT, that bastion of conservative thought.....has destroyed the notion of social distancing:
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118
I only had a quick read but couldn't see where the paper "destroyed the notion of social distancing". To me it seems to say that, unsurprisingly, in indoor spaces which are not sufficiently vevtilated or where the air is not being filtered, distancing alone has no significant effect on transmission through aerosols. Transmission through larger droplets such as those emitted when singing, shouting or just "spitting" while talking are still effectively reduced by distancing, even indoors. The paper also looks at the effects of the various types of masks and mentions that they all help in reducing the spread of droplets to varying degrees. Better masks, correctly worn catch more smaller droplets of course. My take away is that distancing alone in indoor spaces with insufficient air quality management is not enough to prevent transmission. Again, I may well have missed something completely. If so then please do feel free to point that out to me.
#68
Speed, Power, Accuracy
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,699
I only had a quick read but couldn't see where the paper "destroyed the notion of social distancing". To me it seems to say that, unsurprisingly, in indoor spaces which are not sufficiently vevtilated or where the air is not being filtered, distancing alone has no significant effect on transmission through aerosols. Transmission through larger droplets such as those emitted when singing, shouting or just "spitting" while talking are still effectively reduced by distancing, even indoors. The paper also looks at the effects of the various types of masks and mentions that they all help in reducing the spread of droplets to varying degrees. Better masks, correctly worn catch more smaller droplets of course. My take away is that distancing alone in indoor spaces with insufficient air quality management is not enough to prevent transmission. Again, I may well have missed something completely. If so then please do feel free to point that out to me.
I only had a quick read but couldn't see where the paper "destroyed the notion of social distancing". To me it seems to say that, unsurprisingly, in indoor spaces which are not sufficiently vevtilated or where the air is not being filtered, distancing alone has no significant effect on transmission through aerosols. Transmission through larger droplets such as those emitted when singing, shouting or just "spitting" while talking are still effectively reduced by distancing, even indoors. The paper also looks at the effects of the various types of masks and mentions that they all help in reducing the spread of droplets to varying degrees. Better masks, correctly worn catch more smaller droplets of course. My take away is that distancing alone in indoor spaces with insufficient air quality management is not enough to prevent transmission. Again, I may well have missed something completely. If so then please do feel free to point that out to me.
The best mitigation strategy is, was, and always has been, isolate the VULNERABLE, not the HEALTHY.
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Bizjet Captain
Posts: 251
Six feet or sixty feet doesn't matter. It destroys the notion that "social distancing" as we know it makes a lick of difference. Six feet was picked out of thin air when this ball got rolling. No science at all, just like no science behind lockdowns or masking. It proves, yet again, that a virus is gonna virus.
The best mitigation strategy is, was, and always has been, isolate the VULNERABLE, not the HEALTHY.
The best mitigation strategy is, was, and always has been, isolate the VULNERABLE, not the HEALTHY.
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Sorry, I feel you didn't address my question. Where and how does it say that distancing makes no difference? It says that it alone has no effect on transmission through aerosols but some transmissios are through larger droplets. Also, indoors it's the combination of masks and distancing that works best to limit transmission. Show me where the paper says differently. I may well have missed it. Again, it also says that proper ventilation and filtration is better than distancing but without masks you would still get hit by larger droplets when in close proximity. None of this should surprise us.
After a long winded detailed study of many variables the correct answer is... wait for it...
It depends.
Simply put there is no magic minimum distance which will prevent a person’s vapor from touching others. However it made it clear that outside is the best place to be, and while it doesn’t say it directly, masking mandates outside, alone, or with substantial distance between people is rubbish.
So why have so many oppressive leaders demand such? The answer is probably not scientific.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post