We can agree to disagree, I just find it absolutely bizarre that there is such an obsession with masks, when there are much bigger fish to fry that are being ignored.

What are the bigger fish?

BLM protests. No masks required.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422

So we are at $27M per day cash burn. What does it cost to pay 2558 UNA’s? I’m guessing about $1M per day thereabouts. If it’s a 2-year recovery that’s $730M, assuming that’s the average furlough time of all 2558. And Delta is debating on whether or not they want to accept a $4.5B loan, but might need to furlough 2558 to save less than $1B? Are they bluffing or are their priorities that f’d? That’s a really bad look IMO.

you guys don’t even read the stuff you post do you.

Both articles are from April and both have multiple hedged statements like the above because at the time there was not much in the way of studies done on the matter. The piece from the UMN makes the conclusion not to wear masks mostly because they were worried the public would not stay home, and in their view that’s the only way to stop the spread. This was during a timeframe when 2,000 a day were dying and Trump was tweeting about liberating states from stay at home orders.

now you’re gonna get mad at me for reading and correcting your drivel and then tell me to hide under a bed.

I did the math its ~269M to keep us on property until fall 2021.

And there’s $15B cash in the bank, with projections to get cash burn ~0 by year end. Furloughs are not a significant factor in getting to that. I don’t post anything on skynet but I wish someone would ask in the next town hall how they justify the need for furloughs from a financial and priority perspective.

Not creating artificial transmission vectors in the first place, for example, placing thousands of Covid positive patients in nursing homes, resulted in the largest spread, and subsequent death toll in the world. Tens of thousands died, this for some reason, doesn't bother the usual suspects around here.

You continue to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension. Both articles raise questions regarding the effectiveness of masks and indicate that the science is not conclusive. Masks MAY be effective, but they might not be and there are many factors that go into the effectiveness, including type, fit, proper use, etc.

Here is the actual conclusion from the UMN reference. I went ahead and added some bold to aid in your comprehension:

=12pt“=12ptWhile this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings.Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations.

Leaving aside the fact that they are ineffective, telling the public to wear cloth or surgical masks could be interpreted by some to mean that people are safe to stop isolating at home. It's too late now for anything but stopping as much person-to-person interaction as possible.

Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn't they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”