Alas, there is no amount of evidence that will convince the truly committed maskholes that masks are useless. And “virtuous maskers” (I’m doing this for you!) are never going to give up the dopamine boosts they get for suffering for us, the deniers.
To rephrase Hon'ble Sgt Briggs ever so slightly, how can you argue with the certainty of a belief? You cannot. The 'truly committed maskholes' just *know*. Looks like a dead end to me 😒
If we view the wearing of a mask as a psychological game of indentity or a transcendental game of mysticism (as dramatists, Mardi Gras lovers, bank robbers, shaman and witch doctors have always done) then Fauci's China Virus mask makes a bit of sense, but ONLY as psychological game or spiritual mysticism, not as science or medicine:
Does the profession of doctors retain a shred of its former respectability after its irresponsible response to the SARS Covid 2 virus, its ignorance of Covid science and its mishandling of covid patients by consigning them to ER's and ventilators rather than treating them early and properly as outpatients?
The Public Health Bureaucracy's push for masks is the most scientifically unfounded, ungrounded and baseless "practice of medicine" I can recall. since the use of toads to treat warts. I am at Johns Hopkins Medicine Hospitals a lot these days and see their security guards, doctors and nurses rigidly enforce the mask mandate still. On two occasions one of my own doctors lectured me on the importance of the mask, which raises doubt in my mind as to her competence and about placing my life in her hands.
One of the oddest things to me about this whole mask question is that it seems that nobody has ever asked the 50lb brains at 3M about this. After all, I feel sure they designed the N95 mask according to some scientific standard/criteria in order to address a specific usage circumstance. I wonder what these criteria are? I assume that because they are making so much bank over the meteoric vertical climb of N95 sales, they have been loath to volunteer this information, but I have yet to see where anyone has actually asked them about it.
I have used the N95 mask many times over the years when grinding concrete, cutting metals, sanding wood, going to the in-laws house, etc., which are the usages for which 3M used to market the mask and I'm pretty sure that before 2020, the small print on the back of the box had a statement that said something along the lines of "Not for medical use" or something like that, but I have not been able to confirm this.
Priceless is your list of what N95 is good for! Obviously not exhaustive, it sure captures all the essentials 😁
On a sadder note, what difference does it make whether mask package featured medical use disclaimer? The early modular assays for PCR tests came labelled 'For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.' So what? 🤷
If masks worked, why weren’t they recommended every flu season between 1918 and 2019? I guess the people who died over that century were just SOL. “Hey, we knew masks worked, but decided not to tell you until 2020, sorry about that!”
Taleb craps on his books about not trusting anything with less than a millennium of use proving it works or is safe, yet went mad for masks which the entirety of human history and a century of science shows do not work. He is from a part of the world where women cover their mouth with cloth all the time, yet strangely enough still get colds and flus at the same rate as men (CDC studied it in 2005 in Saudi). By the logic in his books, humans would have worked out masks work and banished respiratory diseases long ago. Yet here we are. I bet he is vexxed up the wazoo as well, with the millennium of evidence behind it.
Abstract: It is customary in clinical practice and elsewhere to put on a mask for protection against infection, dust, and so forth. The veil, which is traditionally worn by women in many Muslim countries, especially in Saudi Arabia, may have a similar effect. The study was carried out during 1998-1999 in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Adult women were asked to answer a structured questionnaire related to the occurrence of respiratory tract problems and about veil wearing. Veil wearing was practiced by 58% of the sample. Respiratory infections and asthma were significantly more common in veils users (p < 0.00001 and p < 0.0003, respectively). This unexpected finding was probably secondary to infection. More and bigger studies are recommended.
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James, a psychologist, discussed whether faith and prayer work, and he concluded that they work, for the multitude of faithful who believe they work. Medicine moves the "does it work" ball a bit closer to a matter of science with its ability to demonstrate objectively that placebos do in fact work for some patients, because some patients think they work. Masking against viruses could be viewed in the same objective manner as religious faith and pharma placebos, except the measurement of their efficacy is not a matter of mind over matter opinion. It is a matter of objectively measurable fact. Yet, opinion controls the answer to the mask question. How odd that medical science has been relegated by a handful of federal bureaucrats to a matter of their subjective personal opinion.
Alas, there is no amount of evidence that will convince the truly committed maskholes that masks are useless. And “virtuous maskers” (I’m doing this for you!) are never going to give up the dopamine boosts they get for suffering for us, the deniers.
To rephrase Hon'ble Sgt Briggs ever so slightly, how can you argue with the certainty of a belief? You cannot. The 'truly committed maskholes' just *know*. Looks like a dead end to me 😒
If we view the wearing of a mask as a psychological game of indentity or a transcendental game of mysticism (as dramatists, Mardi Gras lovers, bank robbers, shaman and witch doctors have always done) then Fauci's China Virus mask makes a bit of sense, but ONLY as psychological game or spiritual mysticism, not as science or medicine:
https://mysticalsilicon.substack.com/p/games-and-masks?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=479729&post_id=100377224&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Does the profession of doctors retain a shred of its former respectability after its irresponsible response to the SARS Covid 2 virus, its ignorance of Covid science and its mishandling of covid patients by consigning them to ER's and ventilators rather than treating them early and properly as outpatients?
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-debate-is-over-masks-do-not-work?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=100266318&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
The Public Health Bureaucracy's push for masks is the most scientifically unfounded, ungrounded and baseless "practice of medicine" I can recall. since the use of toads to treat warts. I am at Johns Hopkins Medicine Hospitals a lot these days and see their security guards, doctors and nurses rigidly enforce the mask mandate still. On two occasions one of my own doctors lectured me on the importance of the mask, which raises doubt in my mind as to her competence and about placing my life in her hands.
One of the oddest things to me about this whole mask question is that it seems that nobody has ever asked the 50lb brains at 3M about this. After all, I feel sure they designed the N95 mask according to some scientific standard/criteria in order to address a specific usage circumstance. I wonder what these criteria are? I assume that because they are making so much bank over the meteoric vertical climb of N95 sales, they have been loath to volunteer this information, but I have yet to see where anyone has actually asked them about it.
I have used the N95 mask many times over the years when grinding concrete, cutting metals, sanding wood, going to the in-laws house, etc., which are the usages for which 3M used to market the mask and I'm pretty sure that before 2020, the small print on the back of the box had a statement that said something along the lines of "Not for medical use" or something like that, but I have not been able to confirm this.
Priceless is your list of what N95 is good for! Obviously not exhaustive, it sure captures all the essentials 😁
On a sadder note, what difference does it make whether mask package featured medical use disclaimer? The early modular assays for PCR tests came labelled 'For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.' So what? 🤷
If masks worked, why weren’t they recommended every flu season between 1918 and 2019? I guess the people who died over that century were just SOL. “Hey, we knew masks worked, but decided not to tell you until 2020, sorry about that!”
Taleb craps on his books about not trusting anything with less than a millennium of use proving it works or is safe, yet went mad for masks which the entirety of human history and a century of science shows do not work. He is from a part of the world where women cover their mouth with cloth all the time, yet strangely enough still get colds and flus at the same rate as men (CDC studied it in 2005 in Saudi). By the logic in his books, humans would have worked out masks work and banished respiratory diseases long ago. Yet here we are. I bet he is vexxed up the wazoo as well, with the millennium of evidence behind it.
Thanks for the tip about the CDC Saudi study, which I didn't know about.
Apologies it was 2001. Abstract and link below.
Abstract: It is customary in clinical practice and elsewhere to put on a mask for protection against infection, dust, and so forth. The veil, which is traditionally worn by women in many Muslim countries, especially in Saudi Arabia, may have a similar effect. The study was carried out during 1998-1999 in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Adult women were asked to answer a structured questionnaire related to the occurrence of respiratory tract problems and about veil wearing. Veil wearing was practiced by 58% of the sample. Respiratory infections and asthma were significantly more common in veils users (p < 0.00001 and p < 0.0003, respectively). This unexpected finding was probably secondary to infection. More and bigger studies are recommended.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11829600_The_Effect_of_Wearing_the_Veil_by_Saudi_Ladies_on_the_Occurrence_of_Respiratory_Diseases
Many thanks.
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James, a psychologist, discussed whether faith and prayer work, and he concluded that they work, for the multitude of faithful who believe they work. Medicine moves the "does it work" ball a bit closer to a matter of science with its ability to demonstrate objectively that placebos do in fact work for some patients, because some patients think they work. Masking against viruses could be viewed in the same objective manner as religious faith and pharma placebos, except the measurement of their efficacy is not a matter of mind over matter opinion. It is a matter of objectively measurable fact. Yet, opinion controls the answer to the mask question. How odd that medical science has been relegated by a handful of federal bureaucrats to a matter of their subjective personal opinion.