The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Thomas Dalton Archive
The Emperor’s New Mask: Where Is the Evidence?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On March 10, Texas effectively eliminated all restrictions related to the Covid pandemic. The shutdown ended, restaurant capacities were restored to 100%, and perhaps most significantly for everyday life, mask mandates were lifted. Masks are the most visible, and the most individually obtrusive, aspect of the pandemic. At present, 34 states have some form of mask mandate; the 16 states without mandates include Texas plus Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee. This means that around 100 million Americans are now free to go maskless, whereas over 200 million are still under mandates.

Among all states taking action against the virus, six are generally recognized as having been the harshest: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Of these, Michigan seems to have suffered the most, economically; 32% of its private sector businesses were closed due to the lockdown mandated by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the highest in the nation. This fact alone puts her in strong contention for Worst Governor in America, surpassing even such luminaries as Gavin (“The French Laundry”) Newsom and Andrew (“Strip Poker”) Cuomo. At least we don’t have to worry about her sexually harassing any female staffers—though we can’t quite say the same for Whitmer’s Jewish-lesbian AG, Dana Nessel.

Along with the Michigan business lockdown, of course, came stringent mask mandates, which were initiated on 13 July 2020 and are still firmly in place. The mask mandates in themselves warrant some investigation.

Recently, a correspondent of mine in Michigan contacted his local state representative, a Democrat, regarding the status of lifting the mask mandate. He received a terribly snarky reply from a staffer, along the lines of, “the Representative has no interest in rescinding mask mandates anytime soon.” Furthermore, added the staffer, “it is extremely unlikely that you will see any push to repeal mask mandates (by Republicans or Democrats) until the majority of our people are vaccinated and the virus is under control”—meaning, of course, say goodbye to breathing freely again in Michigan anytime soon.

To his credit, though, the staffer included a link to an actual scientific study, along with the claim that “masks have been scientifically proven to reduce the transmission of COVID and other airborne illnesses.” The report, “An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19,” makes for an excellent case study in the whole mask debate. As the one and only piece of evidence offered, it surely must be the most important. Surely Democrats in Michigan and around the nation have been instructed to point to this very study in defense of masks. It is therefore worthy of some critical examination.

A Few Preliminaries

Before looking at the study itself, let me make one initial point: It is largely irrelevant to claim that “masks have been proven to reduce transmission”—this much is obvious. Any mask, of almost any type, will, to some degree, “reduce transmission” of virus-laden droplets or aerosols. The relevant questions are: To what extent does the reduction in transmission translate into reduced human suffering? (sickness and death) and, Does this reduction offset the disadvantages and costs of mandating masks? If we don’t ask the right questions up front, we won’t reach any useful conclusions. But it is a nifty trick, to pose a false or trivial question and then easily “prove” it to be correct—something like a Straw Man fallacy in reverse. Nice try.

Let’s turn, then, to this most-important of mask studies. Timing is critical in a fast-evolving global pandemic, so let’s consider that aspect first. We see that the report was published in the prestigious PNAS on 11 January 2021—hence, nominally a very recent study. However, we note also that the paper was submitted way back on 13 July 2020. There is of course always some lag time, but amidst a global crisis, six months seems unduly excessive. (Also strange is the fact that the paper was accepted for publication back on 5 December; there is no obvious reason to wait for almost two months to publish, on-line, a study of such urgency.) Given a July 2020 submission date, all developments of the past eight months are of necessity unexamined. This is significant; as we will see, there is one recent study that certainly needs to be included in any mask discussion.

Next there is the question of authorship. The study itself has fully 19 named authors—more names make it more impressive, of course. The lead author (always the main person of the group) is one Jeremy Howard. If we look for Howard’s affiliations, we find two: “fast.ai, San Francisco,” and “The Data Institute, University of San Francisco.” Take the latter first. USF is a small, private university in central San Francisco, which indeed has a Data Institute, dedicated to “creating a new partnership between industry and academia.” And this is perfect for Mr. (not Dr.) Howard, because “industry” is what he does best. His other affiliation, fast.ai, is a small high-tech startup run only by himself and a partner, Rachel Thomas. A review of his bio (“About the team”) and his Wikipedia entry demonstrate clearly that Howard (“entrepreneur”) is in no sense a scientist or researcher; his forte is business and marketing, nothing more. Indeed, Wikipedia only indicates that he “studied philosophy” at his Australian university, apparently not even graduating with a bachelor’s degree. And this man is the lead author in a vital national, even international, study. Both PNAS and USF seem to have very low standards these days for their “scientific” researchers.

The Study that Wasn’t

Turning to the study itself, we read in the Abstract that “the preponderance of evidence indicates that mask-wearing reduces transmissibility per contact”—but again, as I said, this much is obvious. From this fact, they recommend “the adoption of public cloth mask wearing…in conjunction with existing hygiene strategies.” The Abstract closes with this: “We recommend that public officials and government strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation”—implying, but not explicitly calling for, mask mandates.

The study can be functionally divided into two parts. The first part covers some background and history, and then addresses the important issue of “direct evidence” for mask efficacy. Part two is an elaboration of six questions relating to mask use and impact. Let’s examine each part separately.

In part one, the authors rightly note that the best and only truly compelling scientific evidence comes from randomized controlled trials, or RCTs (or equivalently, a metanalysis of several RCTs). In an RCT, one group of random subjects is assigned to the intervention method (here, wearing a mask), and another random group is assigned as the control (here, not wearing a mask). The two groups are studied over time, and the effects are then compared. Here, we would like to know, for example, the Covid infection rates for mask-wearers versus non-mask-wearers. This would tell us if masks provide any protection to the user, and if so, how much. (In the best of all worlds, RCTs would be “double-blind,” meaning that neither researcher nor subject would be aware of who was in the test group and who was in the control. This works well for pills, because some subjects can be given a placebo. But with face masks, it is obviously impossible to run a blind test.)

Unfortunately for us all, the researchers inform us that “for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials [RCTs], due to logistical and ethical reasons.” Therefore, they add, “we should instead seek a wider evidence base.” “There is no RCT for the impact of masks on community transmission of any respiratory infection in a pandemic.” In other words, the gold standard for scientifically valid research—an RCT—is not possible for Covid, they say. Therefore, we are stuck with a poor second-best, namely, observational studies—studies, which are, by nature, anecdotal, suffer from recall bias, and can point only to correlation, not causation.

But more to the point, the authors are simply wrong: we in fact can have RCTs for this pandemic, and researchers in Denmark recently reported on just such a study—with very interesting results. But I defer that discussion for the moment.

Howard and colleagues then note that, even with the second-best observational studies, we have only one: “Only one observational study has directly analyzed the impact of mask use in the community on COVID transmission.” This study, of Beijing households, found masks to be effective, but only if all members wore them, and only if use was implemented before anyone displayed any symptoms. This study thus has no relevance to broader public use of masks. A few other small studies have been done on SARS and influenza, but the applicability of these to Covid is unknown, and in any case, “none of the studies looked specifically at cloth masks,” which is the explicit recommendation of Howard and colleagues.

They continue: A 2011 study of 67 studies, both RCT and observational, on ordinary, non-pandemic occurrences of the flu and other respiratory diseases, showed that “there was insufficient evidence to provide recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures.” Hence, masks alone seemed to offer no protection. If they only work in conjunction with other measures, then it is more likely that the other measures were providing the bulk of the protection.

Most importantly, the authors then briefly mention an April 2020 study (Brainard et al) on masks and respiratory viruses that examined both RCTs and observational cases (pre-pandemic). Using only the stronger RCT data, Brainard and colleagues concluded that “there was only weak evidence for a small effect.” This, in fact, is what anti-maskers have been saying for nearly a year—of the actual, reliable evidence to date, we have, at best, “weak evidence of a small effect.” This is the actual science to date. And on this basis, we inflict mandatory masks on hundreds of millions of people, including millions of children.

Summing up part one, Howard and friends do their best to make lemonade out of lemons: “Overall, direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive. Since there are no RCTs [on Covid], only one observational trial [Beijing households], and unclear evidence from other respiratory illnesses, we will need to look at a wider body of evidence.” In other words, since real, solid evidence is lacking, we’ll have to hunt around for indirect, anecdotal, and other dubious means of coming to the conclusion that we seek.

Six Questions

Part two opens with an ethical question: Can we conduct true Covid RCTs, which necessarily require that we expose unmasked people to potential infection? Howard badly wants to say ‘no.’ But of course, medical scientists do this all the time; they always strive to have a test group and a control group, the latter of which is unprotected, given a placebo, or otherwise placed at risk. This is the only scientific way to establish efficacy of medical treatments, and thus it is standard practice. There are only rare exceptions, such as treating children or pregnant women, in which the ethical concerns indeed usually outweigh the benefits of controlled testing. But for adults, we take our risks, knowing that many more will be benefitted than harmed. Despite all this, Howard is adamant: “ethical issues prevent the availability of an unmasked control arm.” Again, this is his lame attempt to excuse the utter absence of RCTs, and to force the argument to rest upon much weaker bases.

We see his desperation immediately thereafter, where Howard offers us a fine example of Orwellian doublespeak. Lacking firm RCT data, “we need to consider first principles, alongside observational data, … natural experiments, and policy considerations”—a conglomeration that he wonderfully summarizes as “a discursive synthesis of interdisciplinary lines of evidence which are disparate by necessity.” George O himself could not have concocted a better phrase.

He then moves to his six main questions: 1) What are the population effects of mask-wearing? 2) What is required for mask efficacy? 3) Do masks prevent infected wearers from spreading the disease? 4) Do masks protect uninfected wearers? 5) Do masks have unintended drawbacks? and 6) How might we implement mask mandates? I will restrict myself to a few key comments on each question.

First: On population impact, Howard compares both mask and non-mask nations, and then mask and non-mask states in the US. At the national level, one study found overall transmission rates to be 7.5 times higher in non-mask nations, but there are so many variables at work in different nations that the effect of any one action, like masks, is impossible to isolate (lacking an RCT). Among the various states, another study claims 2% lower daily growth rate in mask states, versus non-mask. But again, multiple and diverse measures were taken in the 50 states, over various periods of time, making it impossible to isolate the mask-alone effect. This is precisely why we need RCT data.

Howard then cites—of all things—a Goldman Sachs study of July 2020, arguing that a nationwide mask mandate could save up to 5% of the US GDP (by avoiding harsh lockdowns), which translates to about \$1 trillion. Think of it: compel 330 million people to wear masks, and save \$1 trillion! Who could turn that down? Not Jeremy Howard. One trillion dollars is too much for him to pass up: “mask-wearing could be a low-risk measure with a potentially large positive impact.” Of course, on the other hand, Congress is about to pass a \$2 trillion package for “Covid relief”—thus for just half that price, we could all get to live mask-free. That sounds like a deal to me.

Given the dearth of empirical data, researchers typically turn to computer models, and this is precisely what has happened with Covid. Howard cites a study by Stutt, explaining that “it is impossible to get accurate experimental evidence for potential control interventions, but that this problem can be approached by using mathematical modelling.” But math models can easily lead to absurd and unrealistic results. As Howard explains, “the effect is greatest when 100% of the public wear face masks. [Stutt] found that, with a policy that all individuals must wear a mask all of the time,” that viral spread could be eliminated. Right—and if everyone donned spacesuits for the next six months straight, that would do it too. In the end, as Howard admits, “models presented…are only as accurate as their assumptions and parameters”—but ‘unrealistic accuracy’ is worthless. “Simulations and similar models are simplifications of the real world, and cannot fully model all of the interactions and drivers of results in practice.” Of course.

Second: On efficacy and transmission characteristics, Howard offers little of value. He cites the widely-used statistic that asymptomatic individuals account for 40 to 45% of all infections, and then concludes, with no justification, that “everyone, adults and children, should wear masks.”

Third: Regarding the importance of “source control”—that is, of masks blocking infected individuals from spreading the virus—Howard admits that “there are currently no studies that measure the impact of any kind of mask on the amount of infectious [Covid] particles from human actions.” More bad news for the pro-mask lobby. Howard is reduced to discussing old studies on other, non-Covid viruses. In the end, he even cites the infamous “hamster study” that was used in 2020 to justify masks: infected hamsters were separated in a cage from healthy ones by a “mask curtain,” and the curtain was found to reduce infections. Nice—if you happen to be a hamster, or live in a cage.

Fourth: As to the question of protection of the user, Howard admits at the start that “it is much harder to directly test mask efficacy for PPE using a human subject, so simulations must be used instead”—with all the shortcomings cited above. He then refers to three observational studies, in “health care environments” (e.g. in a hospital), showing some improvement with masks. In discussing another study, Howard again laments the absence of a real RCT study, noting that “there was not a ‘no mask’ control group because it was deemed ‘unethical’.” Most existing data on wearer protection was done with the flu virus, but “it is not yet known to what extent findings from influenza apply to COVID-19 filtration.” In the end, Howard offers a pile of qualifications: “Overall, it appears that cloth face covers can provide good fit and filtration for PPE in some community contexts, but results will vary depending on material and design, the way they are used, and the setting in which they are used” (emphasis added). It inspires little confidence.

Fifth: Of the sociological considerations, Howard and colleagues provide little of relevance. They are concerned that mask-wearers may become over-confident and thus adopt risky behaviors. They are concerned that mandating masks only for the sick—as has always been done in the past—risks “stigmatizing” them. The same holds for blacks and other minorities, who (rightly) fear being seen as criminal threats if they alone are masked. Howard concludes, unsurprisingly, that mask-wearing as “universal policy” is the best solution.

Best of all, says Howard, masks can create a “new symbolism.” Mask-wearing “can provide feelings of empowerment and self-efficacy,” which can in turn “make masks symbols of altruism and solidarity.” Talk about virtue-signaling! Prove your moral worth!—wear a mask!

Six: Howard’s “implementation considerations” are devoid of useful content. Mask mandates can be “challenging” and “polarizing” (really?), but with sufficient scare-mongering, governments can drive up rates.

In his short concluding section, Howard ends with another highly-qualified statement: “The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce…community spread, if such measures are sustained” (again, with emphasis added). He then again cites the Goldman-Sachs figure of \$1 trillion savings with a national mandate. In the end, Howard and friends have almost nothing to stand on; they have no valuable RCT study data, they have only weak “observational” results, and they must draw from older studies on non-Covid viruses that are of dubious value. And yet, they can recommend that governments “strongly encourage” the “widespread” use of masks, in conjunction with the “appropriate regulation.”

Behold: Real Data!

Had poor Mr. Howard been a bit more perceptive during the writing of his study, he would have encountered an astonishing situation: a team of researchers had started, already in April 2020, to conduct an actual RCT test of Covid infections, in real people, living in real-life situations. This is the very situation that Howard called ‘impossible,’ and something that was rife with ‘ethical problems.’ And yet there it was: a team of Danish researchers had recruited 6,000 average Danes to test the efficacy of mask-wearing—specifically, whether masks protected the wearer, and if so, by how much.

A research team led by Henning Bundgaard—an actual doctor with an actual PhD and a professor at the top medical university in Denmark—gave high-quality surgical-grade masks to 3,000 random healthy people, and simply tracked another 3,000 random healthy people as their non-mask control group. In Denmark at that time, mask-wearing was optional. They followed people in both groups for one month, and then administered a standard Covid test to see how many in each group got infected. The results were striking. The masked group had 42 infections (1.8%), and the non-mask control group had 53 infections (2.1%). So yes, the mask group had a slightly lower infection rate, but given the numbers, it is not statistically significant. For all practical purposes, the two groups were the same; hence, the masks provided no effective benefit. This was precisely their conclusion: “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers…”

There were the usual qualifications, as exist with any such study. Due to low relative numbers of infections and other methodological limitations, the Bundgaard study had a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, less than the preferred 98 or 99%. Thus, the data are compatible with a relatively wide variation of possible results; that is, there could actually be a significant reduction from the masks, or even a significant detriment from them, statistically speaking. Hence, the study technically provides “inconclusive results,” as Bundgaard readily admits. Only more research can answer this question more definitively. Be that as it may, it was still a true randomized control test, and still provides useful and statistically significant results.

Needless to say, these results were not what the dominant pro-maskers wanted to see. Consequently, ‘cancel culture’ swung into gear against Dr. Bundgaard and team. Or rather, ‘pre-cancel culture’: major medical journals refused to publish his study. It was simply not welcome news. This resulted in at least a 3-month delay, which is very unfortunate, given the urgency of the situation. Finally, in late November, the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine published the report: “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures.”

The reaction was predictable. The media almost entirely ignored it, as did all those in government and other positions of authority; evidently they felt it was inappropriate to “muddy the water” with such contradictory information. Response from the UK medical profession was more extensive, more honest, and generally positive, though not without its critics. On the negative side, doctors suggested that the low infection rates skewed the results toward ‘no difference’; some suggested that better results would have been seen in higher-infection Asian nations, and others pointed out that the sample size (6,000) was simply not high enough to resolve the difference. A couple of critics argued that a one-month study could not catch all cases, given a 14-day incubation period. But others were very positive about the study. Dr. Simon Clarke wrote:

This is a well-designed and carefully presented study. It provides very good evidence confirming what many people suspected: that wearing a facemask in public, while others around you don’t wear masks, does little or nothing to reduce your risk of being infected by the coronavirus. In fact, it might even slightly increase your risk of being infected. … Taken together, all the evidence shows that it is important for health authorities not to over-stress the effectiveness of facemasks as a way to protect wearers. If people think that wearing a mask means they are reducing their risk of being infected, they are very much mistaken.

Dr. Paul Hunter added this:

The results of the DANMASK-19 randomised controlled trial on face mask use is a good study of the potential value of wearing a face mask to protect the wearer. … The DANMASK-19 study was a well-designed community study. … Swabbing and blood tests at one month would pick up most but not all infections, but this is unlikely to have biased the results and they are less likely to be biased than self-reported symptoms without a diagnosis confirmation. … This finding is in line with our own systematic review published in March, where we estimated the value of wearing masks as primary prevention was about 6% but in the range 20% to -19%. Adding this study to our own review would not materially affect our conclusions.

Another researcher, Dr. Julii Brainard, had this to say:

This is a well-run trial with enough participants to have high confidence in the results—therefore the statistical analysis was adequately powered and inherently adjusted for possible confounders, unlike most studies that try to make conclusions about mask-wearing and catching respiratory disease. … The findings are very similar to what emerged when we assessed earlier research on mask wearing to prevent influenza-like illness: that mask wearing appears to have [only] a small protective effect to the wearers. The magnitude of the protective effect and its statistical significance are not at the thresholds that would normally be required to make a recommendation in favour of mask-wearing.

The situation was encapsulated by Professor Ashley Woodcock: “This is a very valuable community study. The paper is very clear, the analysis correct, and the interpretation appropriate.” And a short but widely circulated article in the Spectator (UK) by two prominent Oxford professors was simply titled, “Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemasks.”

Subtler Arguments against Masks

The primary argument against masks, then, is this: 1) They do not protect the wearer. Based on limited data so far, this seems to be true. Of course, we still want to know if they protect others, meaning, others who are not wearing masks—because we already know that others wearing masks are unprotected.

But if we think about it, we realize that there is a certain symmetry at work here. The problem of transmission is one of output and input: an infected person expels the virus, and a healthy person inhales the virus. But if the masks don’t block the inflow (as proven above), then they don’t block the outflow. Masks are not a one-way valve. The same airflow patterns ‘in’ are reflected in airflow patterns ‘out.’ Yes, these patterns are different in masked people versus unmasked, but evidently they do not halt the ingestion of viral particles; hence, they do not halt the expulsion. I suspect that future research will bear this out.

Granted, this seems to conflict with common sense. It would seem that masks, by blocking at least some our expelled droplets, must be helping, at least a little bit. And of course, they do block some of the germs. But the evidence suggests that this does not prevent infection. As long as the expelled air is not rigorously scrubbed of droplets—such as in a filtered respirator or full body suit—they still escape, and are still passed on to people, masked or otherwise, at roughly the same rate. This is the moral of the Danish study.

But there are other reasons to reject mask mandates. I set aside here trivial concerns such as cost and inconvenience. Yes, it’s a bit of a hassle to ‘mask up,’ but I don’t put much weight on that. Same with cost, given that one can cut up an old t-shirt to make a reusable mask. Bulk paper masks costs perhaps 15 or 20 cents each. I will also bypass the concern that masks cause us to breathe in our own carbon dioxide; this is true to a small extent, but I’ve seen no evidence that this is detrimental in any way. So let me set all these aside.

Consider, then, the following issues, rarely or never discussed:

2) The present mask policy is irrational. Here’s proof: Find anyone in a position of authority—a teacher, an administrator, a restaurant owner, a politician of any sort—and ask them: “What are the objective criteria by which we decide when to stop requiring masks?” You will get—no substantive answer. “When it seems right,” “when infections come down,” “when most of the people have vaccines,” “when we are confident…,” and so on. But these are irrational answers. A scientific, medical emergency should have quantifiable, objective criteria by which actions are taken. This is not an unreasonable request. But our authorities don’t seem to care. Basically they are telling us, “We will maintain our mask policy as long as humanly possible, until the political pressure grows so high that we are forced to backtrack.”

3) Masks are dehumanizing. The most personal, most intimate aspect of our public person is our face. I think we all have noticed how hard it is to interact with others, especially strangers, in a mask. The mouth and lower face convey so much unspoken information about who we are, what we are thinking, and how we are feeling. Lacking this input, we are left with the eyes, bodily movements, and the voice. Obviously we can get by, but it is extremely unnerving for many, and undignifying for all.

4) Masks for children are a form of abuse. It’s bad enough for adults, but think about the effect on youth and children, who are still learning how to interact with others and how to make sense of all interpersonal clues. It is a horrible abuse of children to make them wear masks, especially given data suggesting that they are at extremely low risk, both for illness and for transmission. Think of a poor 5- or 6-year-old who has worn a mask, off and on, for a year now; this is a substantial portion of his or her life, and cannot but have a detrimental effect.

5) Masks are ugly. Say what you like, people in general are concerned about appearance. And masks—all masks—are downright ugly. No one, not even the most beautiful supermodel, looks good in a mask. In fact, the better-looking the person, the uglier the effect. (Believe me, no one cares if a Chuck Schumer or a Deborah Lipstadt wear a mask.) That’s why, throughout history, masks have been used by performers, clowns, actors, and criminals; they warp and distort that most-personal of human features, the face.

6) Masks represent mindless compliance with authority. Present-day governmental figures, at all levels, are virtually devoid of credibility. Thus, when they order us to wear masks, they had better have some truly compelling and transparent reason to do so. Here, they have almost nothing at all—nothing but an appeal to history (“they used masks during the Spanish flu!”) and to so-called common sense. But scientifically, neither of these hold up. Lacking a compelling reason, it becomes strictly an obedience test, and a highly visible one at that. It’s like a reverse scarlet letter: it is physical, concrete virtue-signaling. “I’m an uncritical rule-follower, I trust the authorities, I automatically yield to their directives”—this is what a mask conveys.

7) Masks represent a kind of unquenchable sin. Early in the pandemic, we were told that lockdowns, masks, self-quarantine, etc would only be necessary for two weeks. In 14 days, the virus would cease to be transmitted, and we could all resume our lives. But of course, that did not happen. “People are violating the quarantine!” we were told. “Not everyone is wearing masks!” And so two weeks became a month, became six months, became a year. Lately, Lord Anthony Fauci tells us to expect to wear masks into 2022, even with mass vaccination; now it is the dreaded ‘variants’ that are to blame. And who knows what will come next. The bottom line is this: The sin of coronavirus can never be absolved. Even fully vaccinated people are not allowed to go mask-free! (“You can still harbor the virus,” we are told.) This idea of eternal sin is extremely detrimental to human well-being; and there is something deeply Hebraic about it all.

8) Mandates are a policy of enforced victimhood. A mask mandate compels you to wear a mask, even when you are feeling fine. Why is this? Because you can be an “asymptomatic spreader.” You can be sick and not even know it. In fact, it’s worse than this: We presume you are sick, and therefore we compel you to wear a mask. The policy is: Assume you are sick, and then act accordingly. This is pathological.

9) Mandates are cowardice. Many low-level mandates—gyms, restaurants, libraries, malls—exist because those responsible for the local mandate are simply cowards. They are afraid to buck the trend, or to be the first to drop the mandate. Everyone operates on the mythical “abundance of caution” principle, which means that, in practice, nothing changes. “I’ll drop my mandate if you do,” “No, you first.” On and on, round and round.

10) Mask-wearing has become cultish. It is irrational, or at least hyper-paranoid, to demand that everyone wear masks. We are not allowed to ask for evidence, not allowed to question authorities on this matter (lest we be called ‘racists’ or ‘White supremacists’), not allowed to press back on Emperor Biden, Lord Fauci, or the Jewess in charge of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky. It is functionally a cult—obey, don’t question, don’t challenge, don’t think for yourself.

So, why do they do it? Granted that there may be some, small rationale for encouraging mass usage of masks, why do the powers-that-be go to the extreme and issue mandates? Are they really that concerned about our well-being? Or are there ulterior motives at work? It would seem that they relish the opportunity to enforce conformity in the population, to frighten them into subservience, and to effectively suppress individual thought, individual identity, and individual personality. Masks, indeed, have a homogenizing effect: People lose their individuality in masks. They become, just a bit more, the mindless citizen, the anonymous consumer, the faceless cog. Somehow our leaders relish this idea; individual free-thinkers, after all, are nothing more than trouble-makers for those who would impose uniformity of thought and action. They are the “domestic terrorists”; they are the “White supremacists”; they are the “insurrectionists.” In a mask, people look just a bit more alike, and therefore they can be treated just a bit more alike.

Who is really at risk?

The final question to ask is the larger one, beyond mask mandates: Who is really at risk in this entire pandemic? We have long known that children, youth, and the middle-aged are less vulnerable than the elderly; 59% of all Covid deaths occurred in those 75 and up, and 80% in those 65 and up. We have also known that whites are generally less at risk than non-whites, specifically, than Blacks and Hispanics. The age differential is obvious, but the racial disparity has only recently come to some explanation. A recent study indicates that, of all things, Neanderthal DNA may confer some degree of protection. If so, this would explain why whites suffer less than nonwhites, since only a European ancestry provides any Neanderthal genetic material. Higher white survivability may indeed be “biological,” despite previous protests to the contrary.

Recent studies have also confirmed what was long suspected, namely, that obesity is a prime driving factor in severe Covid illness. The CDC reported that 51% of all hospitalizations occurred in those who were obese, and another 28% in those overweight. In other words, only 21% of hospitalizations occurred in people who were of normal weight or underweight.

One other group at notable risk is Jews, especially the Orthodox variety. A report from October 2020 notes that Jews “from Jerusalem to New York” are being decimated by Covid. In the UK, Orthodox Jews have an infection rate approaching 75%, versus 7% for the British public at large. The same article states that “Jewish men are twice as likely to die from Covid-19 than Christian men in the UK, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors.” A death rate double that of Gentiles suggests, again, some genetic factor at work.

Putting it bluntly, the dominant Covid risk factors for severe illness or death seem to be: old, fat, Black, Hispanic, or Jew. These are the people most at risk, and these are the people dying from it. Perhaps there is a sort of cosmic justice at work; perhaps Nature never intended such people to exist in numbers like those at present; perhaps she is correcting her error. Correspondingly, there is some good news here: if you are white, reasonably fit, and under 80, your risks are minimal, to say the least. But with our Jew- and minority-obsessed government and media in the US, perhaps we can now understand why there is a “coronavirus crisis” in the first place, and why we must wear a mask. It’s not for us; it’s for them.

In the end, we get something like a distorted version of the Emperor’s New Clothes. In the traditional fable, the mad emperor walks around naked and yet his cowed subjects all claim to love his new clothes. Only the virtuous youth is willing to speak the truth. In the real world of today, the mad emperor Biden walks around wearing something—his mask—and his cowed subjects all claim to love it, and yet in reality he wears nothing—that is, nothing that works, or that works very well. We need to be like the virtuous youth, and show it to be what it is.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf , and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaus t (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com. For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: American Media, Coronavirus, Disease, Masks 
Hide 154 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “Perhaps there is a sort of cosmic justice at work; perhaps Nature never intended such people to exist in numbers like those at present; perhaps she is correcting her error.”

    it must hurt to have such thoughts in one’s head.

    • Agree: roonaldo
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  2. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    The Howard “study” seems to be a fraud hiding behind an officious name such as DI. There’s lots of fraudulence in supposed scientific studies. Who pays for them and what their real purposes are remain murky and shrouded. The divide is not science but political, the Biden people being the ones who’ve shown the greatest zeal in putting on their commissar armbands and jumping into action to exert dictatorial control over everyone else. They’ve revealed themselves as being wannabe willing executioners for a dictatorial regime. They got their chance and jumped at it.

  3. Thomas Dalton: “A recent study indicates that, of all things, Neanderthal DNA may confer some degree of protection. If so, this would explain why whites suffer less than nonwhites, since only a European ancestry provides any Neanderthal genetic material. ”

    What? The study referred to is titled “The major genetic risk factor for severe COVID-19 is inherited from Neanderthals”. It also points out that it isn’t only Europeans who have Neanderthal DNA. South Asians have even more than whites. According to the study, it’s a risk factor; not protective at all.

    Aside from that, I agree with the author about the idiocy of this mask hysteria. It’s reminiscent of the dancing manias of centuries past.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania

    In this case, it’s a social phenomenon that allows people to demonstrate their virtue; a badge of group membership. In the mask-mandate states, it’s behavior engaged in because everyone else is doing it, and nobody wants to be the first one to stop. Once it ends, as it eventually will, there will be no explanation given for why mask-wearing shouldn’t have been continued indefinitely to reduce influenza and other diseases, just as the dancing manias eventually ended with no explanation given. No explanation will be given because reducing deaths wasn’t ever the point. It’s all just for show. It’s a fashion statement tailor-made for our totalitarian age.

    • Replies: @Aardvark
  4. Dumbo says: • Website

    Masks, lockdowns, social distancing, nothing of this works. These ideas were planned in advance, taken not from scientific studies but from Hollywood movies because it’s all theatre and this way it looks as if “they are doing something” and the “pandemic” becomes visible. Without the omnipresent masks, and social distancing, no one would know that there is a “pandemic” going on.

    I have to disagree with the last part, which seems wishful thinking on part of the author. “Nature is correcting her error”?? Wtf. This is not natural in any way, from the origins of Covid (lab) to the responses to it.

    Also, many older people died in the beginning of the pandemic, not because of Covid, but because of mistreatment, neglect and the bad use of ventilators.

    • Replies: @johnnyuinta
    , @Boris II
    , @JM
  5. @the fat controller

    It must hurt? Why is that?

    • Agree: Getaclue
    • Replies: @Max Payne
  6. A doctor shows how effective masks can be at containing small particles. Or not, as the case may be.

    • Thanks: Alfred
  7. polistra says:

    The studies about cloth and paper and virus are utterly irrelevant.

    Simple fact: We’ve had real epidemics before, and got through them without muzzles. A few places tried muzzling in earlier epidemics, and real public health SCIENCE decided back then that the muzzles didn’t make any difference.

    The best way to control a respiratory virus is to let people get it. Our own immune systems kill it. Muzzles and distancing slow down the spread, which means they slow down our ability to handle and kill the virus. This was obvious from the very start. So a more “effective” muzzle is actually worse.

    The important fact about this virus, which was also obvious from the start, is that it only kills people who are already on the way to death. The people who are already sick are NOT OUT IN PUBLIC. They are in hospitals and nursing homes. So all of this crap that controls NON-SICK people can’t possibly help the people who are already dying. They’re going to die soon even without this virus, so this virus is IRRELEVANT. We wouldn’t have noticed it if Deepstate hadn’t used it as the reason for a killing spree.

    The controls on NON-SICK people have nothing to do with any virus. The sole purpose of these controls is to destroy culture and economy and skills, just a continuation of the long march of Deepstate destruction.

    • Agree: TKK
    • Replies: @TKK
  8. MarkU says:

    The CDC reported that 51% of all hospitalizations occurred in those who were obese, and another 28% in those overweight.

    Given that more than 2/3 of Americans are obese or overweight, that statistics is less impressive than it sounds. If you also include the fact that people are more likely to be overweight or obese when they are older, that statistic begins to look very lame indeed. Humanities wonk in action.

    • Agree: Reverend Goody
    • Replies: @Getaclue
    , @Drew
  9. The best refutation is the system’s own self-refuting propaganda, namely the recent CDC assessment of the alleged effect of mask mandates. They found that according to their own grossly inflated “case” numbers, mask mandates with all their harms bring at best a 1% reduction in transmission.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/cdc-canceled-google-facebook-covid-heresy

    https://alethonews.com/2021/03/05/the-cdcs-mask-mandate-study-debunked/

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2021/03/to-mask-or-not-to-mask-what-is.html

    We’re familiar with the narcissism of small differences, and here we have the worst NPD: Narcissism Policy Disorder of small differences. The imperial media trumpets an alleged 1% difference as the justification for continued radical aggressive interventions. (As always, there’s never any rational analysis of alleged benefits vs. costs and risks. As from day one, the danger of “Covid” is assumed to be infinite while every other value and concern is discounted automatically to zero.)

    That’s the best the CDC itself can do even according to its own fraudulent numbers, a pathetic 1%. (Since the infection and case numbers are grossly inflated by the systematic fraud of PCR testing and deliberate misdiagnosis, any real difference if it exists at all is much lower.)

    • Replies: @Getaclue
  10. Fauci demonstrates optimum masking

    • Agree: Reverend Goody
    • LOL: Biff
  11. Aardvark says:

    Within the mask community, they should do a study that compares two groups.
    Group one wears a properly fitted N95 mask, never touches it or their face, washes their hands frequently, wears it 24×7 with controlled mask changes at periodic intervals.
    Group two reuses their mask for months at a time, drops it below their nose to breathe, carries it in their pocket or purse, hangs it from the rear view mirror, and in some cases picks up dog poo with the mask and then puts it back on. They wear the mask mostly for indoor shopping and constantly fiddle with it, touch their face frequently and wash their hands less often. Oh, and the group 2 masks are made up of all sorts of materials; underwear, neoprene, cloth, mesh fabric, etc.

    • LOL: acementhead
    • Replies: @sally
  12. onebornfree says: • Website

    This article entirely misses the point.

    It’s completely irrelevant as to whether whether masks [or lockdowns, or any of the rest of the B.S.] actually really work.

    Lets assume for the sake of argument that all such measures actually _do_work.

    This just in: [at least ] in theUS of A, there’s a little something called the constitution and bill of rights.

    NOWHERE in any of these documents was the federal government granted [ by the states] the power/right to manage/control the individuals health and well-being via the passing of laws to enforce certain dress requirements [eg masks], laws that restrict the individuals right to travel wherever [eg lockdowns], or laws that restrict their ability to make money [eg enforced business closures], or laws that restrict freedom of movement [eg social distancing requirements].

    And if Biden and his evil cronies pass laws that mandate vaccinations for all, then that would be no different, constitutionally speaking.

    Anyone who believes that the federal government does, or should have those powers, should get the hell out of the US [you really don’t belong here], and move to China, or N. Korea, Canada, GB, Australia, NZ, or similar, where you’ll all be a lot happier [or so you think].

    Regards, onebornfree

  13. Zumbuddi says:

    Has anyone chronicled how the mask fetish got started?

    In my small experience, a Unitarian (aka busy-body) said she had a nurse-friend who “pleaded” for face masks for her fellow hospital workers. “Could the Church sewing circle do something . . .”

    Sewing Circle rose to the task, and in short order, making face masks became Scarlet & Melanie rolling bandages for Our Boys. Even the Amish got caught up in the frenzy.

    Then cooler heads took charge, that is, capitalists saw a way to make a buck.

    Volunteers were banished, masks became a fashion accessory, cottage industry turned into B School model enterprise, Pelosi became the Jackie Kennedy of mask chic.

    So I’m not sure if the Mask Mandate phenom started out from Top Down or from Bottom Up.

    • Replies: @Getaclue
    , @El Dato
  14. I live in Virginia. Our state has been in some form of lockdown for a year, including the mask mandate. Our idiot governor and his wife both have caught Covid-19; either they don’t follow their own mandate, or masks don’t work. Remember that the median age of Covid-19 victims globally is 82 years old, meaning half of Covid-19 victims are over age 82. 95% of victims are over age 60 (except supposedly in the US, “an outlier”; however except for gross incompetence in treatment in the US, the virus behaves the same everywhere). I wear a mask, not worth the harassment otherwise, protection is minimal.

    The CDC now says 59% of Covid-19 cases are transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. I think they just make up stuff.

    The mask study in Denmark was based on a hypothesis that masks would reduce Covid-19 cases by 20%. They were stunned by their results (which generally makes them more believable!) and publication was suppressed by the scientific authorities, since it deviated from the Official Narrative.

    I lived in Singapore for parts of four years. Singapore has a Covid-19 death rate of 5 per million (vs 1649 per million in the US). Singapore has had 59,974 confirmed cases, with 30 deaths. The media keeps saying Singapore was prepared for Covid-19 by an earlier SARS epidemic. THAT IS A TYPICAL MEDIA LIE. SARS is a hospital-spread lethal disease; while deadly if caught, it was not particularly contagious (there were only 238 cases in Singapore, but 33 deaths). Singapore’s Public Health people have made it clear that an INFLUENZA outbreak after SARS was the impetus to tighten their Public Health procedures. Unlike SARS,that flu outbreak although relatively innocuous swept through the Singapore population. But you might ask, as I did, didn’t Singaporeans wear the ubiquitous MASKS for when a bug is going around? “Yes we did, but the masks didn’t work.” So instead Singapore made the choke points their borders, already extremely tight, for viral (Covid-19) entry, which allowed them to catch and corral those infected who entered with Covid-19 (quarantined and treated, initially at government expense). Just basic Public Health pre-AIDS. (“Racist!” in the US)

    Another major problem is that most Covid-19 “experts” are AIDS experts. AIDS is not particularly contagious, the spread easily managed with condoms and clean needles. People like Fauci, the WHO, Larry Gostin, etc are all on record as saying travel bans and border controls were “counterproductive” at the same time as Asians countries were implementing them against China and other infected countries. The results speak for themselves. Of course, enacting travel bans AFTER Covid-19 has become established and community spread is pointless.

    Back to masks. The BIGGEST detriment to masks is that many people feel they are protected/invincible due to masks and can do stupid stuff, like wearing them into an unventilated restaurant and then removing them to eat and drink.

    Japan’s Covid-19 death rate is 68 per million despite being the oldest population on earth and very Westernized. Japan follows their Three Cs approach: Avoid Crowded spaces, Avoid Closed spaces with poor ventilation and Avoid Close Contact settings and conversations. Much more protective than masks.

    • Agree: DCThrowback
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    , @JM
  15. theMann says:

    Masks aren’t medicine, they are a Fetish Totem signaling cowardice, conformity, and obedience. If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have believed people capable of such cringing servility.

  16. For a more complete cost-benefit analysis of masks, we must also consider the potentially significant harms of hypoxia and microbiome derangement.

    The Danish study as well as state-by-state comparisons suggest that masks may result in increased disease. Why might this be?

    Most of the population, being malnourished and unathletic, already suffers from poor lung function. What happens when they reduce their cerebral oxygen perfusion even further? Cognitive capability declines along with the entire nervous system in ways, as with monetary inflation, that not one person in 100 seems able to diagnose. Anyone who has attempted vigorous exercise with a mask will quickly feel the effects; I have nearly passed out in a supermarket when I was merely wearing a weight vest and a mask. I cannot imagine how the overweight and those with comorbidities manage.

    “Mask mouth” is another well-described symptom which hints at a profound disruption of oral, facial and pulmonary flora. When worn without strict medical hygiene, which is almost all of the time, masks become saturated with pathogens, and when we see people with literal diaper rash on their faces, we can be sure that is only the tip of the iceberg.

    The full extent of these harms, as with the mRNA experiment, will only become apparent in time, at which point much of the damage may be irreversible. It is not my intention to describe these risks in detail, but they absolutely must be considered to appreciate long-term consequences, especially for children. It mystifies me that these risks are almost never addressed by either side of the discussion.

    • Agree: Getaclue
  17. @onebornfree

    Since it’s illegal to walk down the street naked, they can use that argument to say that they do have a right to tell you what to wear. That they have no constitutional right to force clothing upon you is conveniently ignored.

    Passports are the written document that says the warden has granted you the right to leave his jurisdiction. Without that piece of paper, you are a prisoner inside an open air prison – the US. The fact that almost no one but myself thinks this way is why the gov’t can impose another travel restriction opting for internal passports so one of their goons can ask : vehr ahr yo paypas?

    Face it – the average person hates true freedom. They want to be told what to do and how to live their lives. What’s worse, they want you to be their cellmate for your own good.

  18. The sin of coronavirus can never be absolved. Even fully vaccinated people are not allowed to go mask-free! (“You can still harbor the virus,” we are told.) This idea of eternal sin is extremely detrimental to human well-being; and there is something deeply Hebraic about it all.

    So, if the sacrament of vaccine doesn’t wash us of our COVID sin, why bother? Why bother with the sacred rite of wearing the vestment of the mask, since COVID is an indelible origignal sin. We should simply prepare to meet our maker when He calls us.

    The differences between the two 3,000 person sample groups (not one 6,000 person sample group) are indeed not statistically significant. To state that the sample size is not large enough to represent the population of Denmark is a red herring. What they are really saying is that the sample sizes were not large enough to make the difference statistically significant. If you got the same difference in positive rates on two sample groups of 16,321, then it would be significant, but that is bending the statistical analysis to achieve the desired result. IOW, when they are putting that argument out there, they are actually pulling things out of their posteriors and throwing them against the wall to see what sticks.

    Wearing masks is indeed dehumanising. Large scale programmes that dehumanise the populace are crimes against humanity; the removal of a group of society from political participation and discussion is also a crime against humanity.

    BTW, what about studies that show the deleterious effects ectended mask-wearing has on physical health?

  19. SteveK9 says:

    Excellent comprehensive look at the mask phenomenon. Unfortunately looking around me, I would say that a miniscule portion of the population could read this and understand it.

  20. I do think mask help a little bit as protection particularly if you inhale by nose and exhale bby mouth and as such way you wet your mask.

    • Agree: HdC
  21. Garliv says:
    @theMann

    A symbol that people will do what they are told no matter how ridiculous. Masks enforcement have been excellent experiment on how easy to rule people of the world by fear.

    • Agree: acementhead
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  22. Hegar says:

    Best of all, says Howard, masks can create a “new symbolism.” Mask-wearing “can provide feelings of empowerment and self-efficacy,” which can in turn “make masks symbols of altruism and solidarity.” Talk about virtue-signaling! Prove your moral worth!—wear a mask!

    You hear this from Social Democrats all the time. They are furious when you point out the uselessness of some measure their party promoted, because obeying is a symbol that you Want To Do Good, as defined only by the socialist parties. If you point to facts, that is just your EXCUSE for not wanting to do good.

    For example, a study showed that people driving with their separated garbage to a garbage-separated installation, damages the environment far more, by the gas fumes, than the tiny, insignificant impact of separating your garbage.

    I mentioned this to a socialist in high school, who immediately got that expression where the lips are pressed tightly together. According to him: “But maybe it’s what it SHOWS that’s the point.”

    Shows. It’s for show. It shows you are a good leftist. That’s what matters.

    Whenever you show socialists facts, and they refuse to believe it, they come up with a “maybe”. In their minds, that’s enough. Until they can come back to their propaganda media for another dose. Back to reading something by some clever thinker who shows how to disregard those facts. Phew, crisis averted.

    So about masks: It SHOWS that you are on the right side, the socialist side. The side of U.S. Democrats, Labour or Social Democrats. It’s like religion: no matter you know X didn’t happen, saying you believe it is for show.

    So it’s crucial what socialist parties start out with. If it’s disproven later doesn’t matter. You have to stick to it for show.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  23. Getaclue says:
    @MarkU

    So because they are fat, morbidly fat, healthy people need to put on muzzles and society must be destroyed by lockdowns etc.? This “you want to kill Grandma” bs is nothing but psychological warfare. If you are at risk then take appropriate measures but don’t throw it on others who are not at risk that they are responsible due to your risk factors — Society is not going to survive this type of forced “living” — none of this bs has ever been done in human history and none of it has anything to do with anyone’s health, it is made up “Science” — it is the Great Reset of the NWO and “Climate Change” is now being tossed on it as a cause of more coming “Pandemics” so we can be locked down for that reason also…. — NWO Gates Creep Fauci makes it obvious every time he opens his mouth that this is all a NWO political Agenda and has zero to do with anything else….

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch, Alfred
    • Replies: @Drew
    , @MarkU
  24. anon[899] • Disclaimer says:

    There are some kids in high schools who will have lost their Junior and Senior years due to the response to the virus. They might have made some lifelong friend, met and fallen-in-love-with their future spouse, been further socialized and gotten over a little shyness while developing social and conversational skills.

    But no. A few billionaires had to beat Trump by any meams necessary, so some kids lose the best years of their lives. Some old folks in nursing homes have covid patients bedded in the same room with them because a Democratic Governor wanted to get the death numbers up to hurt Trump.

    “Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord”

    They are gonna pay for this, on HIS timetable. Bet on it.

  25. Rooster11 says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time, thank you for this video. I first watched it without sound, and all I could think was showing this to some die-hard mask wearing friends and family as they ramble on about the effectiveness of masks… as this guy literally just blows smoke holes through their rationale.

    “When you live in Clown World, every policy becomes a joke.” – Rooster

  26. Getaclue says:
    @Flying Dutchman

    Combine that with the fact an independent audit found the CDC purposely changed how “deaths” are calculated, for the first time in decades and specifically to influence the CVirus numbers, and broke Federal Law in doing so — allowing them to inflate CVirus deaths by 1600%.

    The CDC like Fauci is nothing but an arm of the NWO and Big Pharma/Gates — it has zero to do with keeping citizens healthy — just the opposite.:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/cdc-exposed-inflated-covid-deaths-1600-throughout-election-violated-multiple-federal-laws-peer-reviewed-study-finds-state-local-governments-must-act/

    • Agree: Flying Dutchman
  27. Getaclue says:
    @Zumbuddi

    There are 41 actual Medical Studies of Masks and CVirus — ALL of them basically say the same thing — they are USELESS as to CVirus and in fact can cause infections. The Mainslime Media lies about this endlessly of course — the reason is clear — to cause hysteria and use all of this to bring in the NWO Agenda of the Great Reset and all the rest to make us all like the 24/7 monitored ChiCom Peons:

    https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-true-agenda-of-the-who-a-new-world-order-modeled-after-china/

  28. Can anyone get total weekly mortality figures for Texas? I predict they will drop right down to normal right after March 10th.
    Its the Lockdown that kills.

  29. It is largely irrelevant to claim that “masks have been proven to reduce transmission”—this much is obvious.

    Well, maybe not. There does generally seem to be some rhetorical sleight-of-hand afoot regarding the word transmission. Transmission is the passing of something from one point to another. If we consider transmission from the initial point, then masks impede transmission: some of the viralparticles will end up in the mask. If we look at it from the other end of the exchange – the person to whom the virus is being transmitted – does the fact that the transmitting person is wearing a mask actually impede transmission to the transmittee?

    Let’s imagine you and I are in a room together. (Assume no ventilation.) If I don’t wear a mask, does the additional volume of viral particles expelled into the atmosphere translate into more viral particles breathed in by you than if I didn’t wear a mask? Are the additional viral particles dispersed too widely to make a difference? Do they agglomerate, thereby increase their mass, and fall to the floor, unbreathed? Is there some other mechanism by which they’ll fail to be breathed in?

    I’ll read the rest tomorrow.

  30. Clemsnman says:

    Can we go back to the beginning? What’s the point of preventing the spread of a flu with a .999 or so survival rate for anyone not especially old or fat? Just let us get it, get over it, and get on with it.

    This has been so illustrative of our cultural decay. People must do something, anything, that shows they care.
    Case in point, college sports. Can’t play, might spread the virus among healthy young athletes. Okay, can play, but only conference games. Huh? And then in college football media-dom, not one person I heard ever publicly questioned such an obvious lack of logic.

    We are too stupid to survive this for much longer.

  31. Marckus says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    I wear a mask even when I am getting it on. I make sure it is colour coordinated to my sling shot jock strops to turn on my lady even more.

    The other day I had a trollop so ugly I almost took off my mask and put it on her. That would have exposed me however so I used my Pita sandwich bag instead and covered her face.

    I don’t have a problem when I get down to short strokes and more oxygen is needed, I just pull the mask aside. What with practising social distancing I am still trying to figure out how to deliver the charge from 6 feet away. In any case we fellows can be our own doctors and deliver a personal injection and a custom vaccine if you know what I mean.

    We are all in this together right ? Finally, I want to applaud the author for his 2021 word article telling us what we already know. We sure do appreciate the additional information and update.

    In the meantime Lads, keep on injecting and vaccinating. Just make sure you put the needle in the right vein !

  32. Ugetit says:

    I’ve heard that it’s important to ask the right questions if you want the right answers but our masters know that it’s more efficacious to fund the “right” people.

  33. To see the reports on these genocide covid-19 vaccines by a world renown vaccine expert Dr. Geert Vanden Bosseche check these sites, henrymakow.com, thetruthseeker.co.uk, trunews.com, naturalnews.com, etc..

    These genocide vaccines are going to result in the deaths of hundreds of millions, a Jim Jones agenda gone world wide.

    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton
  34. @Dumbo

    “many older people died in the beginning of the (scamdemic), not because of COVID, but because of mistreatment, neglect, and the bad use of ventilators?”

    All true, but perhaps the most egregious “on purpose” error was deliberate misinformation. The damning and denial of the use of Hydroxychloroquine(a safe, cheap long-time effective drug) for battling the virus.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
  35. Ugetit says:
    @RoatanBill

    Since it’s illegal to walk down the street naked, they can use that argument to say that they do have a right to tell you what to wear.

    Since mask day 1, I began spouting off by asking the masked idiots what they would do if the government suddenly demanded that they run around with without covering their genitals “for their health.”

    Very few understood the point I was attempting to make, so I gave it up.

    What’s even worse is not only do they want you to be their cellmate, but more than a few self-righteously demand it. The situation is truly appalling.

  36. Alfred says:

    In Kiev, almost no one wears masks outdoors. When I see someone walking outside with a mask, I tell myself that either this person watches too much TV or that this moron is signalling virtue.

    The staged photo below is from March 2020. No police wear masks that way. 🙂

  37. Has anyone else figured out that we are putting the masks on the wrong end of the body? The Chinese have it almost figured out. They are changing over from nasal swabs to anal swabs. That surely means they have done the studies to prove the anus is at least as reliable a place to find the virus as the nose.

    From what I’ve read, the intestinal epithelia are rich in the ACE2 receptors, the prime point of entry of the virus into cells. Meaning the viral spawn also get released into the gut to be carried away in what we politely call intestinal wind. Otherwise known as farting, Ladies and Gentlemen. Let’s not be squeamish here.

    I have it on good authority that the research department at Depends has this all in hand and will shortly be announcing the development of a back-hole mask that will solve the problem. Shortly thereafter Stinky Joe will announce his Mask Mandate Number 2. It may be a wee bit longer than MM#1, by a factor of about 50 or 100, but be assured that when we are all vaccinated and covering our mouth holes and our back holes we should be able to do whatever we want with our front holes.

    There’s good news and bad news here, of course. Because we don’t need to breathe and extract Oxygen through our back holes, the filters can be made extra tight, taking out some very small particles. This will have the obvious advantage of making interactions with your with bean-eating friends much more pleasant.

    The bad news is that it is somewhat more complicated to seal off that back area to avoid leakage through the edges. For now at least, we will have to meticulously tape the waist and legs of the garment before we leave the house to go shopping or visiting. There will be mandatory and somewhat intrusive inspections at the grocery store, where you will have to drop your pants to prove you haven’t been lax in your technique.

    But again we are looking at tubing gadgets that might collect all that wind from your back hole and subject it to ultra-violet light or disinfectants like chlorine bleach before it is expelled to the atmosphere. Just like Mr. Trump predicted a full year ago.

    And you all thought he was kidding.

  38. @anonymous

    Yes, it would be interesting to see what entity funded the study published by the “The Data Institute, University of San Francisco.”

    It’s not as if certain diabolical creatures and their foundations haven’t been known for paying for studies and computer modeling to reach the conclusions specified in the funding mandates. Or, maybe, like Hitler, his toadies knew exactly what he wanted without written orders and pursued those goals. I mean, after all, if your paid to reach a specific conclusion shouldn’t you try to meet those demands?

    It’s like the software industry. If the customer presents specific requirements it’s then up to the developer to write the software to meet those requirements. Being that software is pretty malleable it’s not all that difficult to twist it into a pretzel to come up with the expected output. Even if you have to hard code the expected output.

    It would also be interesting for an investigation into exactly who is profiting from these mask mandates other than the manufacturers in China. Does Fauci own shares in a company or patents involving cloth masks sold around the country? Why else the complete 180 between his “no one needs to wear a mask” and the now near ubiquitous mandating of mask wearing?

    Of course, that’s pretty much fallen flat on it’s face since the majority of people that wear masks now wear reusable masks. I remember seeing bins of masks being sold at a discount at Walmart not too long ago. I can only suspect that “Brain Dead” Biden’s 100 day mask mandate is just a ruse so that major players can offload inventory on the unsuspecting public.

  39. @johnnyuinta

    Or, even the use of naturally occurring vitamins such as Vitamins C and D.

    Certain satanic creatures and their foundations are hard at work trying to shut down alternative discourse on the subject.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/joseph-mercola/fda-warns-dr-mercola-to-stop-writing-about-vitamin-d/

  40. Mr. Anon says:

    Next there is the question of authorship. The study itself has fully 19 named authors—more names make it more impressive, of course. The lead author (always the main person of the group) is one Jeremy Howard.

    You left out what are perhaps the most relevant affilliations for Mr. Howard:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Howard_(entrepreneur)

    He began his career in management consulting, at McKinsey & Company and AT Kearney.

    ……………..

    He is also a Young Global Leader with the World Economic Forum, and spoke at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2014 on “Jobs For The Machines.”

    i.e. – he’s a foot-soldier in the army of the New World Order.

    I’ve noticed that a lot of people now refer to themselves as “data scientist”. It seems to be a common job description for people who screw around with computers in some way. And it makes them sound all sciency and impressive.

    Science really is the new priesthood.

  41. Mr. Anon says:
    @Hegar

    You hear this from Social Democrats all the time. They are furious when you point out the uselessness of some measure their party promoted, because obeying is a symbol that you Want To Do Good, as defined only by the socialist parties. If you point to facts, that is just your EXCUSE for not wanting to do good.

    The degree to which masking is just virtue signalling was demonstrated by Fauci himself last summer when he was invited to throw out the first pitch at the Washington Nationals game:

    https://images.wsj.net/im-213121?width=1280&size=1

    Here’s Fauci standing outside on a summer day in a virtually totally empty stadium standing on the pitcher’s mound – which means he is at least 60 feet away from the nearest person – wearing a mask. Even assuming that masks “work” (they don’t), his wearing of a mask here is completely unnecessary. It is merely for show. For propaganda purposes.

    Now, here is the thing about slippery Tony: he’s all about the science, remember? He’s Mr. Science. He believes in real sciency science – nothing but 200 proof science. Everything with the science. But he wasn’t doing that “because science”. He was doing that to impress upon you – the herd – wear your mask, shut up, don’t ask questions.

  42. JimB says:

    Masks don’t work. If you cough or sneeze into a mask, infected droplets of saliva and sputum embedded in the mask partially evaporate leaving virions embedded in the mask’s material matrix. Breathing warm moist air through the matrix transfers virions onto much smaller aerosol particles. So when you don’t wear a mask, you are sporadically infectious when you sneeze or cough, but when you wear a mask, you are continuously infectious when you breathe. A good way of thinking about a mask is as a transfer function where the input is a low flux of infectious large particles that remain airborne for a short period of time and the output is a high flux of infectious small particles which remain airborne for a long period of time.

    • Replies: @Hughes
  43. SafeNow says:

    “Lombard Speech” increases when wearing a mask. Lombard Speech is speech that is louder. (Also elongation of vowel sounds, and use of a higher frequency.) This increases the ejection of aerosol, thus jeopardizing the non-wearer. An analogy is wearing a mask with a valve, in terms of transmitting pathogens.

  44. Most masks are worn incorrectly. They are not snug.

    Most people wear them repeatedly, even when they are sopping with slobber or nose goo. Not effective.

    Half the people here wear them over their mouths but not their noses. They make breathing difficult.

    Some small fraction of us wear them over our chins. Damned if I want the dreaded Chin Covid.

  45. Drew says:
    @MarkU

    Why, it almost makes you think that maybe this virus was developed in a lab, and that victims’ genetics play a large role in susceptibility.

  46. Begemot says:
    @theMann

    Since medical masks are ineffective, will you insist that the surgical team that will operate on you dispense with their masks?

    • Replies: @theMann
    , @Ugetit
  47. Boris II says:

    Ah, the ignorance and paranoia of Unz.com.

    The author here complains that masks haven’t been proven effective beyond all scientific doubt. This is true. But the confused author never applies the same scientific scrutiny to the “damage” caused by mask mandates. Probably because there is none. For instance:

    And on this basis, we inflict mandatory masks on hundreds of millions of people, including millions of children.

    What are we inflicting, exactly? Since there is evidence that masks are effective and since there is virtually zero cost to wearing a mask, mask mandates are an obvious policy choice.

    Then we get to the eugenics:

    Putting it bluntly, the dominant Covid risk factors for severe illness or death seem to be: old, fat, Black, Hispanic, or Jew. These are the people most at risk, and these are the people dying from it. Perhaps there is a sort of cosmic justice at work; perhaps Nature never intended such people to exist in numbers like those at present; perhaps she is correcting her error.

    Obviously, this line of thinking is beyond stupid. But why not accept the counterargument? If wearing a mask damages you–physically or psychologically–perhaps you are simply too weak to venture outdoors.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  48. Drew says:
    @Getaclue

    The point is simply that there is no disproportionality between the population ratio of weight and virus suffering. For example, if obesity were a major factor for infection, you would expect obese people to suffer from infection at a rate higher than their proportion of the population (e.g. if obese composed 20% of the population and had 60% of infections, you should conclude that obesity probably plays a role in susceptibility to infection). That the virus is distributed to fat people at roughly the same rate as their population, it seems unlikely that it’s a factor.

    • Thanks: MarkU
    • Replies: @MarkU
  49. gsjackson says:

    “Masks are ugly.”

    Well, look on the bright side — no more lookism.

    I’ve long thought that all of American life in recent decades can be explained by three phenomena:
    (1) revenge of the nerds
    (2) revenge of the homosexuals
    (3) revenge of the ugly women

    (1) and (3) are very much in play in Covid Crazy Time, and I’m sure beastly Karens are the main drivers of the mask imperium.

  50. Boris II says:
    @Dumbo

    Masks, lockdowns, social distancing, nothing of this works. These ideas were planned in advance, taken not from scientific studies but from Hollywood movies

    This guy is appropriately named.

  51. Boris II says:
    @theMann

    Masks aren’t medicine, they are a Fetish Totem signaling cowardice, conformity, and obedience.

    This brave boy sure seems afraid of wearing a mask.

  52. @Garliv

    As one cannot enter a store maskless without making a scene, most people, myself included, have concluded that mask refusal, when it is required for commerce, is not a principle worth dying for. The crunch will come in a few months when everyday life will become near impossible for those who refuse the deadly vaccine. As I think that my miserable life will not be worth living once the Great Reset is fully in place, I plan to refuse the shot no matter what happens to me. I am already a black sheep to my family, who all swallow the vaccine lies and refuse to listen to any opinions which questions them. Every morning I wake up I feel one day closer to my impending doom.

    • Agree: JasonT
  53. El Dato says:
    @Zumbuddi

    When demand for surgical masks started to mount, it was found out that there weren’t any cause manufactured had been moved to China. Then it was found out that it would take a bit in any case because new masks must “air out” for a couple of weeks lest they give the wearer cancer from the disinfectant applied.

    So the order came from the top:

    – Surgical masks only for those who need them.
    – For the rest of you, you don’t need them anyway.

    Which is when hand-made mask construction begun. It was weird.

  54. utu says:

    What a drivel! 6,100 words of drivel.

    Danish studies have several serious flaws. First there is an issue of adherence in the masked group. 46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended. How many positives were in the three groups the study does not say.

    Second problem is the infection diagnostics. Majority (group A) were diagnosed via antibody IgM/IgG tests while smaller group B were positive on RT-PCR test and/or (groups C) health-care diagnostic.

    (Group B) There were zero RT-PCR positive in the masked group and five in the control group.

    (Group C) There were 5 symptomatically diagnosed in the masked group and 10 in the control group.

    Groups A, B and C are not mutually exclusive.

    Apart from the statistical significance issue since numbers are small we could theorize that for people who ended up symptomatic (group C) masks offered 50% (factor of 2) protection and in the group B 100% protection. If the two groups B and C were combined providing that they are exclusive masks offered 67% (5:15) protection.

    Could we look at Groups B and C as confirmation that masks reduce the viral dose that leads to less severe infection while still producing antibodies with milder symptoms?

    Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer (Jul 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?articleTools=true

    There is even more drivel in the article when the author tries to dismiss the fact that masks protect others. This sentence “But if we think about it, we realize that there is a certain symmetry at work here. “ is a perfect example of hand waving argument by an ignoramus.

    Why Thomas Dalton who I presume may have some degree of reputation among WWII and Holocaust revisionists would be willing to risk it venturing into areas that he simply is not equipped to deal with or is it that once you are a Holocaust denier there is no scintilla of reputation left to protect?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Greg Gerdes
  55. Aardvark says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The governor of Texas undoes his prior tyrannical order to wear masks etc. and Biden refers to it as Neanderthal thinking. So whites not suffering as bad from SARS-COV2 = Neanderthal; BIPOC suffering badly under SARS-COV2 = social injustice and Jews having second holocaust.

  56. Hughes says:
    @JimB

    The evaporation of your saliva and shedding cells happen with or without masks. Putting on masks contain the chances that one contaminated things through their nasal or oral fluids including when one subconsciously contaminated their hands by touching their face which then went to contaminate further anything they touch.

    So yes masks do not reduce the risk of airborne virus from spreading by any significant number but they do contained the spread by fluids or droplets. Of the two medium of spread droplets contain significantly more number of virus than an airborne lighter than dust particles. If they want to reduce the airborne virus spread then they need more than masks. So the argument is wrong that it is useless. Rather they did not do enough and they’ll need much stronger air circulation and those airtight masks. Still it doesn’t justify in any logical way to stop using masks during pandemic.

    While it’s true some did it wrong either using them over their mouth or chin or continues using wet and dirty ones it really doesn’t make any logical sense that decades of medical practices protocols suddenly became wrong.

    Tldr if masks doesn’t contain droplets you’re doing it wrong. If you want your masks to stop airborne particles get an airtight one with those activated carbon filters.

    • Replies: @JimB
  57. @Desert Fox

    At first I was every bit as alarmed as you, but then read this article:

    https://www.rosemaryfrei.ca/the-curious-case-of-geert-vanden-bossche/

    Quote: “this has all the hallmarks of a drug-company astroturf campaign”

    Rosemary Frei has been a consistent voice of sanity throughout this nightmare. NB Vanden Bossche was/is associated with GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
  58. theMann says:
    @Begemot

    Surgical teams wear masks to either keep from drooling into open woulds, or keep blood splatter from spraying into their mouths.

    Either you know this and are making a completely dishonest equivalency, or you don’t know this and are a moron.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    , @Begemot
  59. @Boris II

    If you think a mask protects you, then I logically don’t have to wear one in your presence. You’re protected and therefore should have no opinion on if I want to protect myself since it’s none of your business as long as you’re safe.

    Those pushing the masks, distancing, getting the jab, etc are just busybodies who want to control others lives according to what they think is proper.

    • Agree: Realist, Theophrastus
  60. @Simon Tugmutton

    Cigarette filters don’t stop smoke and they’re a lot thicker than masks.

  61. @Simon Tugmutton

    Regardless of what rosemary or Bossche is saying I regard the vaccines for a virus that has never been isolated ie it does not exist, as a genocide program by the globalists to depopulate the earth and this is what the mRNA vaccines were designed to do , ie , destroy the immune system. The number of deaths from these vaccines prove that it is a clear cut genocide program.

  62. Ugetit says:
    @Begemot

    Since medical masks are ineffective, will you insist that the surgical team that will operate on you dispense with their masks?

    Duh…

    Details here, genius!

    First, let’s be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that “masks must work to prevent viral transmission” is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing “apples to oranges.”

    -Dr. Jim Meehan, Surgeon Destroys Myth: ‘If Masks Don’t Work, Why Do Surgeons Wear Them?’

    https://cnsnews.com/index.php/commentary/dr-jim-meehan/surgeon-destroys-myth-if-masks-dont-work-why-do-surgeons-wear-them

    • Agree: Greg Gerdes
  63. Ugetit says:

    COVID paraphrase of Garrett’s comment on the Great Depression which was written nearly a century ago.:

    Mass delusions are not rare. They salt the human story. The hallucinatory types are well known; so also is the sudden variation called mania, generally localized, like the tulip mania in Holland many years ago or the common-stock mania of a past time in Wall Street. But a delusion affecting the mentality of the entire world at one time was hitherto unknown until then and they have since become an everyday experience. None of our experience with it is original.

    This is a delusion about a pandemic. And whereas from the nature of public health authorities it is to be expected that a certain line will divide the view between bureaucratic authority and the masses, the irrational fact in this case is that for more than a year the authorities and the bulk of the masses together have pursued the same deceptions. In many ways, as will appear, the mendacity of the authority has exceeded the gullibility of the masses.

    -Garet Garrett, A Bubble that Broke the World, p3. (1932) paraphrased

    https://archive.org/details/TheBubbleThatBrokeTheWorld2

    • Agree: Greg Gerdes
  64. JimB says:
    @Hughes

    From an epidemiological standpoint, masks enhance infection rates by the mechanism I describe. Therefore, they are worse than useless. I agree with your point that a full respirator with a charcoal filter would be effective, however.

    • Replies: @Hughes
  65. Dutch Boy says:

    One can quibble about the merits of various studies but there is one salient fact about masks that is undeniable: surgical masks were designed to prevent bacterial contamination of wounds peri-operatively. They were not designed to filter out viruses or the aerosols that contain viral particles (that goes double for cloth masks). Claiming otherwise is like saying you can drive a nail with a loaf of bread.
    Nurses in Canada won two arbitration rulings in 2015 and 2018 when they were compelled to wear masks during influenza season. Both arbitrators examined the evidence and found that there was none that supported the notion that surgical masks could prevent the spread of influenza. SARS Covid 19 is a particularly small virus (0.06 to 0.14 microns), about half the size of most viruses (including the influenza virus).

  66. Should surgeons therefore stop scrubbing hands and arms and smoke sigs when operating…?

    Use metal hangers to perform abortions…?

    Have we evolved a bit since we left Africa…?

    Wearing anything should be an option.

    Not mandatory.

  67. @Desert Fox

    Broadly agree — and I suspect the adverse reactions are being massively under-reported and also downplayed. If you die after the jab that’s just a coincidence, but if you die from any cause after a ‘positive’ test then that’s covid! A perfect specimen of Orwellian doublethink.

    Frei was one of the first to point out that ‘Sars-Cov-2’ has never been isolated, the obvious implication being, as you say, that it doesn’t exist.

    https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/

  68. I have not worn a mask and I will not wear a mask. I have been in numerous encounters that almost led to altercations. If someone wants to make an issue out of it, I’m ready. This pandemic is a lie, a way to try to control us, and I will not abide by any totalitarian designs.

  69. @theMann

    And the funny part is: surgical masks aren’t even designed to be sealed. They’re meant to be worn loose, specifically so that the surgeon doesn’t have trouble breathing.

    Tight-fitting masks are a basic med school 101-level mistake, especially during long surgeries where anything from fogging glasses and CO2 buildup can distract, or hasten dangerous fatigue.

  70. @Simon Tugmutton

    At first I was every bit as alarmed as you, but then read this article:

    Well I don’t know why you’d stop being alarmed. What Bossche said is completely true about the MRNA injections, as Frei agrees.

    Where Bossche goes off the rails is his insistence that nevertheless “vaccination” is necessary, he just wants other types of injections to be inflicted. That glared out at me the first time I read about his letter. I posted this comment at the time:

    Even most critics of the MRNA mass experiment still are capable of thinking only in terms of massive violent interventions by institutions and remain in a state of contempt for the natural immune system in spite of the lip service they pay to it.

    Since the interventionist route for the original (objectively mild) “Covid” phenomenon has proven such a total counterproductive disaster from any human point of view, what kind of monster does one have to be to call for doubling down on interventions to deal with escalated harms and dangers caused 100% by the interventions themselves? Humanity needs to purge itself of such infinite psychopaths.

    In the end all technocrats are the same fanatical builders of the Tower of Babel, however much they squabble among themselves. The Tower itself has to be knocked down.

  71. onebornfree says: • Website
    @RoatanBill

    “Face it – the average person hates true freedom. They want to be told what to do and how to live their lives. What’s worse, they want you to be their cellmate for your own good.”

    Agreed. 😒

    Regards, onebornfree

  72. Exosome says:

    Trust the guy with your health who thinks he’d be a woman.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Covidians, assemble!

  73. sally says:
    @Aardvark

    A research team led by Henning Bundgaard—an actual doctor with an actual PhD and a professor at the top medical university in Denmark—gave high-quality surgical-grade masks to 3,000 random healthy people, and simply tracked another 3,000 random healthy people as their non-mask control group. In Denmark at that time, mask-wearing was optional. They followed people in both groups for one month, and then administered a standard Covid test to see how many in each group got infected. The results were striking. The masked group had 42 infections (1.8%), and the non-mask control group had 53 infections (2.1%). So yes, the mask group had a slightly lower infection rate, but given the numbers, it is not statistically significant. For all practical purposes, the two groups were the same; hence, the masks provided no effective benefit. This was precisely their conclusion: “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers…”

    I have not read the study, but striking to me is the essential necessity to control the RT test.. it abounds with random false positive error.. the reason for the failure to show statistical difference could be the variability and unreliability of the the test used. https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/12/tanzania-the-second-covid-coup/

    President of Tanzania mysterious disappearance since he famously had his office submit five unlabelled samples for testing – goat, motor oil, papaya, quail and jackfruit – and when four came back positive and one “inconclusive”, he banned the testing kits and called for an investigation into their origin and manufacture
    read all about it https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/12/tanzania-the-second-covid-coup/

    • Replies: @sally
  74. MarkU says:
    @Getaclue

    Wow, you read all that stuff into my comment, I never mentioned masks, lockdowns, or grandma’s for that matter. Are you under the impression you are psychic or something?

  75. The last few paragraphs are off-topic and unnecessary for this essay. You opened a Hebraic can of worms that has nothing to do with your thesis on masks.

  76. MarkU says:
    @Drew

    Judging from the mortality by age stats, it is clear that age is the biggest risk factor by far.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report

    (scroll down to 2a)

    Judging from that graph it is clear that locking down the younger age groups was pointless, even counterproductive.

  77. JM says:
    @Dumbo

    “I have to disagree with the last part, which seems wishful thinking on part of the author. “Nature is correcting her error”?? Wtf. This is not natural in any way, from the origins of Covid (lab) to the responses to it.”

    I took it as IRONY.

  78. @anonymous

    Even learned scientific journals have bemoaned the tidal wave of scientific fraud, particularly where BigPharma gelt is at stake. And there are dark mutterings everywhere concerning the ‘reproducibility crisis’, what some have called a publication crisis in that money calls the tune as to which ‘findings’ are published. And why else would the medical Mafias wage such a virulent campaign of lies and fraud and fakestream presstitute vermin 100% Groupthink against hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, safe, effective and CHEAP treatments for CoViD19? Instead these scum say ‘Take the vaccine’, or wait for hideously expensive BigPharma medications, like the virtually worthless remdesivir sometime in the future after millions more have died.

  79. @onebornfree

    Mandatory vaccination is against several articles of International Law, to which all the Western ‘rules-based order’ thugs are signatories.

  80. @michael888

    As with the poor children. Forcibly masked all day in some places, when open windows and a nice draught would be more effective. Or holding lessons outside. The psychological damage, already apparent in increasing child and adolescent suicides most markedly, and to come, is hideous to ponder.

  81. JM says:
    @michael888

    “Our idiot governor and his wife both have caught Covid-19; either they don’t follow their own mandate, or masks don’t work.”

    Or they’re bullshitting. There’s a lot of moral hazard in demonstrating ‘Surviverhood’.

  82. Max Payne says:
    @Jim Christian

    If it has to be explained then you just might be retarded.

    That being said great article. Perhaps removing that one sentence might be better in the long run. Not because of censorship. Does it really offer anything in this particular case but display the authors hate?

    Its almost as if the author does not want this piece to be circulated to others….

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  83. Begemot says:
    @theMann

    There is a lot of drooling by surgeons during surgery? Indeed?

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgical_mask :

    A surgical mask, also known as a medical face mask, is a personal protective equipment worn by health professionals during medical procedures.[1][2] It prevents airborne transmission of infections between patients and/or treating personnel by blocking the transmission of pathogens (primarily bacteria and viruses) shed in respiratory droplets and aerosols into and from the wearer’s mouth and nose. [emphasis added]

    I think you are being deliberately obtuse, but then I may be giving too much credit.

  84. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    What a drivel! 6,100 words of drivel.

    I dunno. It seems to me that the effectiveness of masking is an entirely empirical issue.

    Offhand, it seems pretty plausible that they would work, especially in decreasing the viral load, which apparently has a substantial impact upon the likelihood of serious infection.

    Then again, I can think of some plausible reasons why they might not work, especially if they’re not used in fully rigorous fashion.

    In fact, to the extent that they provide a feeling of false security, it’s even possible that they might be counter-productive.

    Until we have some solid studies, there’s really no way of knowing. And although that Danish study hardly seems definitive, it did tend to point in the opposite direction.

    It’s hard to believe that the matter hasn’t been heavily studied at least with regard to other viruses, so maybe somebody can dig up five or six studies that the author missed.

    • Replies: @theMann
    , @TKK
    , @utu
  85. “The efficacy of the mask is uncertain,” per the CDC, or so I have read.

  86. WARNING: Take anything written by Thomas Dalton with a grain of salt.

    I have no problem with Dalton’s statements of fact concerning masks, but let’s not forget that he once alleged that 90,000 jews were murdered at Treblinka and also fraudulently alleged that:

    On the revisionist thesis, many thousands of people did indeed die in the camp, of various causes. A high-volume transit camp would have received thousands of incoming dead (recall the “one third” statistic above), and many more would have died of disease and, yes, execution (likely by bullet) at the camp. So it is fully expected that mass graves exist in the camp. But the anticipated number of victims is much smaller—perhaps 10% of those claimed. Thus we might expect to see a total grave volume of around 10,000 to 12,000 cubic meters, rather than the 120,000 required by the conventional account.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6924&start=15#p50513

    When challenged to prove his allegations, he cravenly refused and tucked tail and ran away from any further debate on the issue. He didn’t even attempt to proffer any further evidence of his unsubstantiated allegations and never proved that one single person ever died in transit to the camp or while in it, or the existence of a single grave at Treblinka – mass or otherwise, even when he had the opportunity to earn thousands of dollars for doing so. (See: https://thisisaboutscience.com/ )

    Thomas Dalton is a craven weasel who has a history of refusing to defend his allegations.

  87. Hughes says:
    @JimB

    Like i said. Wearing soggy wet and dirty face mask is an improper way to do it. Therefore they should be more education on how to properly use them. That if they’re wet you need to change them, change it periodically, etc.

    If the argument that is they’re useless and ineffective then one should suggests doing more instead of doing less.

    • Replies: @JimB
  88. Game-playing by the CDC. The characteristics that separate Covid “deaths” from the rest of the population are comorbidities, age and frailty. Because Covid deaths are basically normal morbidity, the people who die have multiple comorbidities, they’re old, and they’re already confined to long-term care. If you’re sick with three or more of the following comorbidities: Diabetes, Hypertension, COPD, Cancer, Dementia, Stroke, Liver cirrhosis, Cardiovascular diseases (including IHD and Congestive heart failure), Chronic kidney disease, and Immuno-deficiency; and you’re in long-term care, and you’re over the age of seventy, you’re likely to die, and when you go, they’ll list you as a Covid death.
    If you do not have three or more of those comorbidities, and are not in long-term care already, and are not over age seventy, you’re unlikely to die in any given month, and so unlikely to have Covid put on your death certificate when you go.

  89. 6,100 words? That’s a long winded way to say what we already know. Masks are useless. I think it’s time for some real thinkers, maybe Mr. Unz, to answer the question: How did we get in this predicament in the 1st place? I’m not going to lay the blame on Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Big Pharma, corrupt politicians, because greedy people commit crimes, criminal organizations exist, politicians are mostly low IQ narcissistic actors with a penchant for blowing anyone that has more money than said politician. You can’t trust all people or shit happens. What’s the answer the question of how we got to where we are today. I’ll keep it simple, and also give you a clue. We turned on our television. Every day for 15 months we have been treated to 24/7 fear mongering … covid … covid … covid … die … die die … never get back to normal … reset … reset … blah blah blah. (It’s 911 style reporting on steroids. Did we all forget that all of it was a lie? We bought that, and now we’re buying this shite. We’re fucking morons. Why? and What do we do about it? Hey maybe I’m wrong. I’ll let someone else answer that one.
    Something tells me, in the UNZ Review archives there are plenty of articles covering things like Operation Mocking Bird, domestic propaganda, brainwashing, PTSD, CIA, MI6, etc. Maybe the answers are there.
    We did this to our self. We even paid for it. At night they laugh at us. Now how do we undo it? How do we make them stop?
    You can start by tossing the mask in the garbage and walking outdoors like a natural human being to announce your taking your life back. CDC FACT COVID HAS A 99.97% survival rate if left untreated.

  90. theMann says:
    @Ron Unz

    You are right, it is an empirical issue in two parts:

    1. Do masks reduce risk from viral particles:

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/joseph-mercola/landmark-study-finds-masks-are-ineffective/

    2. Does long term mask wearing actually cause harm:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/no_author/twenty-reasons-mandatory-face-masks-are-unsafe-ineffective-and-immoral/
    https://www.technocracy.news/german-neurologist-on-face-masks-oxygen-deprivation-causes-permanent-neurological-damage/

    Then there are the more general sources covering both issues with masks, as well as the long term environmental damage.

    https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/06/face-masks-a-danger-to-our-planet-our-children-ourselves/

    Of course, the most severe damage of the great Masking will be to the development of young children, not seeing people’s faces for a year has already caused them real and permanent psychological damage. Which everybody but regime psychologists have already figured out, for the most part.

    amazing what five minutes of searching can find.

    Of course, all of this skirts the issue of compulsion, which is the naked fist of tyranny unadorned. A person who would compel face masking is a person who would authorize torture in the service to that compulsion, the entire last century is a historical compendium of that reality.

    • Replies: @Flying Dutchman
  91. TKK says:
    @polistra

    The important fact about this virus, which was also obvious from the start, is that it only kills people who are already on the way to death.

    I think you are on to something important.

    Today, thinking about the 49 year old obese woman who died from Covid-19, per medical community. I have known her since Sunday school class.

    Hypothesis: Before the lockdowns, she had to move around some. She taught kindergarten. She had to get up, shower (hopefully), move around in the classroom, perhaps stop by the grocery store and buy more junk. But she did move.

    After her kindergarten class moved “remote” she never had to move. She laid in her bed to teach class, and was basically immobile for 24 hours a day.

    Clinical studies have shown over and over that sedentary lifestyles are as deadly as diabetes, cancer and smoking.

    The triple threats she had: obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes were cocked and loaded, but kept barely in check by the minimum movements daily life imposed. Just enough to delay death by a few years.

    The lockdown took all those away. She was free to be as slovenly and immobile as she chose. The hairline bit of activity that kept her heart pumping and her lungs barely functioning vanished.

    Causation: A happy lung is a dry lung. Even the common cold cause very real respiratory distress. Her lungs became inflamed and soggy, making breathing laborious. She never moved, she kept eating excessive calories, and her heart had to work even harder- through all that adipose and the wet heavy lungs.

    Conclusion: Her heart could not pull it off any longer and she died. But everyone bleats: COVID as her cause of death.

  92. TKK says:
    @Ron Unz

    It’s not drivel.

    People are being tackled and arrested for not wearing a mask. Arrests can never be expunged. You may apply for a sensitive job and have to answer YES to the question: Have you ever been arrested?

    The societal pressure to wear a mask is huge. In court, I have personally been threatened with contempt and treated like a criminal because I pull it down to breathe properly. I have been chased through a Publix Grocery by a manager, berating me to wear a mask or I could leave, or he would call the cops.

    If you browse through magazines now, the articles have references to masks and social distancing in all the content, breezy and accepted for hereafter. For example, I saw in an article today: How To Cheer Up a Lonely Friend? Text them and suggest a socially distanced walk.

    This is a cult, and it is primarily about virtual signaling. It has nothing to do with containing viral loads. Science is out. As silly as it sounds, if Trump had been rabidly Pro Mask- masks would be categorized as racist or some other insane propaganda.

  93. jsinton says:

    I’ve decided to cave-in and get my vaccination now. But only after all minority people in the world get their jab first. Because, you know, Trump and racism.

  94. JimB says:
    @Hughes

    Like i said. Wearing soggy wet and dirty face mask is an improper way to do it. Therefore they should be more education on how to properly use them.

    Like, change your mask after every soggy sneeze or hacking cough? I believe only charcoal can absorb virions effectively. But charcoal is hard to breathe through. The people most in need of wearing masks are people with COPD, but masks can reduce that blood-oxygen levels to critically low levels.

    I say quarantine the elderly and infirm and let everyone go about their business without masks. Then it’s six months to herd immunity for everybody.

  95. @theMann

    Of course, the most severe damage of the great Masking will be to the development of young children, not seeing people’s faces for a year has already caused them real and permanent psychological damage. Which everybody but regime psychologists have already figured out, for the most part.

    Of course, all of this skirts the issue of compulsion, which is the naked fist of tyranny unadorned. A person who would compel face masking is a person who would authorize torture in the service to that compulsion, the entire last century is a historical compendium of that reality.

    Yes, and the best part of the article is the author’s overview of these kinds of matters.

    But Ron Unz’s comment you were replying to makes it clear that he doesn’t care about that entire line of criticism and opposition. That comment is a pure expression of the standard mindset which assumes the physical danger from “Covid” is infinite while automatically discounting every other value, concern and risk to zero.

    I’m the radical opposite – from day one I was clear that even if it could be proven to me that “Covid” really was a dozen black deaths rolled into one with ebola cherries on top the way the terrorist propaganda would have it, I’d still say doing nothing and letting nature take its course was better than giving this evil soul-killing system any further coercive and smothering power. No pandemic ever could be remotely as bad as existing (I deliberately didn’t write “living”) under totalitarianism.

    “He who would cling to his life will lose it, he who would give it up will gain it.”

    • Agree: gsjackson
  96. Cascadian says:

    “Masks are not a one-way valve.”

    True, and Wrong.

    It is very evident to anyone who is forced to wear a mask (e.g. we are forced to wear them in enclosed spaces like shops) that it is not a closed muzzle, the air one exhales does get out – it is not the equivalent of something completely blocking exhalation from one’s nose and mouth while simultaneously allowing unhindered inhalation. So it is not a one way valve.

    It is also very evident that it does impose a partial barrier to inhaled breath, else how is it to hinder the inhalation of virus particles in the air surrounding the face. So it impose a hindrance to freely inhaled breath and one is aware of a more concious effort required for inhalation. So it is not a two way valve either.

    It also imposes a partial barrier to exhaled breath which results in a certain amount of that exhaled being retained between the mask and the face. So a certain amount of this exhaled breath will be re-breathed on the subsequent inhalation – the result being one then inhales some of the aerosol previously exhaled (thus increasing one’s virus load if there is any in the exhaled breath).

    A reasonable conclusion then is that, if one is indeed infected and emitting virus particles in one’s exhaled breath, the wearing of a mask will increase one’s own risk of serious disease due to the increased viral load one will be subjected to.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  97. Just on (unvaccinated) asymptomatic spread, this is an interesting meta-analysis to look at:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102

    In short,

    ..Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)..

  98. Sparkon says:
    @Cascadian

    It also imposes a partial barrier to exhaled breath which results in a certain amount of that exhaled being retained between the mask and the face. So a certain amount of this exhaled breath will be re-breathed on the subsequent inhalation – the result being one then inhales some of the aerosol previously exhaled (thus increasing one’s virus load if there is any in the exhaled breath).

    A reasonable conclusion then is that, if one is indeed infected and emitting virus particles in one’s exhaled breath, the wearing of a mask will increase one’s own risk of serious disease due to the increased viral load one will be subjected to.

    I‘m sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

    First of all, you cannot infect yourself. If you’re breathing out the SARS-Cov-2 virus, virions, or viral particles, you’re already infected.

    Second, any virions caught in the myriad fibers of a cotton mask aren’t going anywhere, but rather are being hung out to dry (and die).

    Third, the Great Clips hair salon event in Springfield, Missiouri, USA is slam-dunk proof that face masks work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    I have already written at length about face masks here at UR. Please click on my name, and search for “masks.”

    Finally, over the last year, I have been wearing various homemade and retail 3-layer mostly cotton masks while shopping, and never once has my mask gotten damp or soggy at all. I do suffer at times from allergies that cause my nose to run, but I’ve found that putting a neatly folded facial tissue inside my mask soaks up any nasal drips or discharges for the duration of my shopping trip. By the way, I now wear two masks while shopping.

    Please note that I’m 74 and a long way from death’s door, but I’ve been an athlete most of my life, and have a lean, muscular physique that allows me to ride my bike and remain active. I get additional regular sunlight by sitting or puttering around outside on my patio.

    Of course, in Ron Unz’s book, I’m elderly and nothing I say has any merit. Our host has dismissed Norman Mineta’s testimony to 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton about Dick Cheney’s activities on 9/11 simply because the 71-year old Mineta was “elderly” at the time, forgetting I suppose that his own National Security Editor is currently 74 or 75, and thus several years older than Mineta was when he gave his testimony.

    Some of us old guys have acquired and retain a lifetime of knowledge.

    Honor thy elders; they just might know more than thee.

    • Replies: @Greg Gerdes
  99. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    Sorry, but I don’t buy your concern and curiosity. What you have allowed to be published here is dreck that does not contribute anything constructive to resolving masking issues.

    And this

    “In fact, to the extent that they provide a feeling of false security, it’s even possible that they might be counter-productive.”

    is typical libertarian trope used as a red herring to delay and obstruct constructive actions. No different from the killer seatbelts of 1970s.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/corona/#comment-4374376
    Libertarians’ response to masking is psychotic in essence. Very similar to their response to the seat belts requirements in 1970s. Then a ‘research’ was done to demonstrate that seat belts would increase fatalities because drivers would be engaging in more risky behavior. The ‘risk compensation’ meme was entered into the debate:

    The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation, Sam Peltzman, Journal of Political Economy
    Vol. 83, No. 4 (Aug., 1975), pp. 677-726

    “Technological studies imply that annual highway deaths would be 20 percent greater without legally mandated installation of various safety devices on automobiles. However, this literature ignores offsetting effects of nonregulatory demand for safety and driver response to the devices. This article indicates that these offsets are virtually complete, so that regulation has not decreased highway deaths.

    Lo and behold in August 2020 some hacks from some business school published this gem:

    Risk compensation during COVID-19: The impact of face mask usage on social distancing
    https://www.onmedica.com/documents/mask_compensation_manuscript

    Consistent with risk compensation, we found that participants indicated they would stand, sit or walk closer to the stranger when either of them was wearing a mask. This form of risk compensation was stronger for those who believed masks were effective at preventing catching or spreading Covid-19,

  100. @Sparkon

    Sparkon:

    Third, the Great Clips hair salon event in Springfield, Missiouri, USA is slam-dunk proof that face masks work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    This is a bald-faced lie.

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 is alleged to be a complete, singular, visible, tangible, isolable, identifiable, characterizable, literal autonomous physical entity that has been scientifically authenticated via electron microscopy and genomic sequencing.

    FACT: If SARS-CoV-2 actually exists, it can be proven to exist.

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 has never been proven to exist.

    FACT: Those who allege that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist are lying.

    It’s time to wake up Sparkon, and admit to that the NO-vid coronacon is a cognitive illusion.

    If you want to talk “proof” then it’s also time to put your money where your mouth is:

    fightbackmt.org – is offering a \$5,000.00 reward for irrefutably proving that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist. For more information, contact Greg Gerdes at: [email protected]

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    I’m looking forward to hearing from you.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  101. @utu

    Utu:

    What a drivel! 6,100 words of drivel… There is even more drivel in the article when the author tries to dismiss the fact that masks protect others.

    You want to talk facts Utu?

    OK, let’s:

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 is alleged to be a complete, singular, visible, tangible, isolable, identifiable, characterizable, literal autonomous physical entity that has been scientifically authenticated via electron microscopy and genomic sequencing.

    FACT: If SARS-CoV-2 actually exists, it can be proven to exist.

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 has never been proven to exist.

    FACT: Those who allege that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist are lying.

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    Alleging that it is a “fact” that “masks protect others” from NO-vid-19 is as nonsensical as saying it is a fact that masks protect one from unicorns.

    Utu, it’s time to put your big-boy pants on and accept the real facts about this fraudulent cognitive illusion.

  102. Sparkon says:
    @Greg Gerdes

    Sorry, but the Springfield Missouri Great Clips case has been extensively studied and widely reported, so it’s not a lie at all, but rather an established fact.

    Rather than making reckless and false accusations, or presenting your ignorant opinions as “FACT”s, I suggest you do what I suggested: click on my handle, and read my previous posts about masks, cotton fabric, the 1918 Flu Pandemic, viruses, dimensions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and related matters.

    I don’t expect you to do it, but if you further studied my commenting history at UR, you’d find I’ve had long discussions with people here who insist artificial satellites don’t exist. No logical argument or presentation of evidence will sway them from their dogma.

    With COVID-19, it comes down to this. I accept that the SEM and TEM images do in fact portray the responsible novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, in the much the same way I accept that those Nikon P90 photographs of the ISS taken by skilled amateurs are valid.

    The problem is that stubborn attachment to dogma and fervent beliefs prevents some fools and other gullible types from believing their own eyes, so I doubt any SEM or TEM images of the SARS-CoV-2 virus would penetrate either your dogma or your thick skull.

    Others with open eyes and an open mind may profit by having a look at NIAID’s pages and album at Flickr, where they’ve recently posted their latest image of one of the virus’s varients;

    Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2


    Transmission electron micrograph of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (UK B.1.1.7 variant), isolated from a patient sample and cultivated in cell culture. Image captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Credit: NIAID

    National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases SARS-CoV-2 album at Flickr:

    Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

    You can donate my reward to your favorite charity.

    • LOL: Exosome
    • Replies: @Exosome
    , @Greg Gerdes
  103. @Desert Fox

    Exactly.

    This whole Bossche thing is a red herring. Just more fear porn designed to keep people from looking at the foundational fact of this NO-vid-19 coronacon – which is:

    SARS-CoV-2 has never been proven to exist.

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    Any discussion beyond that simple irrefutable fact is useless distraction.

    NO-vid-19 is a cognitive illusion designed to distract people from and enable the depopulation agenda.

  104. Exosome says:
    @Sparkon

    Now that’s really funny.
    By posting funny colorful art renderings, you just proved you have no clue about electron microscopes, which only make black & white photos, while altering the dead cell material, eg vaporizing water.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Greg Gerdes
  105. Sparkon says:
    @Exosome

    Yes of course these images of SARS-CoV-2 have been colorized for clarity. The captions on at least some of NIAID’s images on Flickr specify that, so my bad for posting one that doesn’t, and for failing to point out what I thought was obvious.

    Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

    Colorized scanning electron micrograph of a cell (purple) infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (yellow), isolated from a patient sample. Image captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Credit: NIAID

    No clue? This is typical of the wild-ass exaggeration commonly heard in these parts. Again, check my commenting history at UR, where I’ve used SEM photos of cotton fabric and fiber to buttress my arguments about the effectiveness of multi-layer cotton masks.

    • LOL: Exosome
    • Replies: @Greg Gerdes
    , @Exosome
  106. @Exosome

    LOL! is right. The simpleton says that because something is alleged to have been “extensively studied and widely reported” means that “it’s not a lie at all.”

    I just checked my email and there is nothing from Sparkon. (What a surprise.)

    What are you waiting for Sparkon?

    What are you so afraid of?

    • Replies: @Exosome
  107. anon[279] • Disclaimer says:

    Masks not needed.
    “Work, don’t work”, discussion not
    different than, “which lie is true”.

  108. @Sparkon

    Sparkon:

    I accept that the SEM and TEM images do in fact portray the responsible novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

    Well then Sparkon:

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    I’m still waiting for your email.

    What are you waiting for?

    What are you so afraid of?

    Sparkon, here is another fact for you:

    FACT: Not one person who alleges that SARS-CoV-2 exists has ever mustered the courage, integrity and character to put their money where their mealy mouth is and accept the challenge to bet that they can irrefutably prove that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist.

    Remember Sparkon:

    To cravenly refuse to bet that you can prove what you allege has been proven, is a tacit admission that you know what you allege – has not been proven.

  109. @Sparkon

    Sparkon:

    these images of SARS-CoV-2 have been colorized for clarity…

    Yet another lie from Sparkon.

    Take a look at the following:

    Attention all Montana Citizens!

    A \$5,000.00 reward is being offered to the first employee of a Montana State / County / City Health Department and / or member of a Montana State / County / City Board of Health and / or member of a Montana State / County / City disease related Task Force; who irrefutably proves that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist.

    Note: If you do not meet the eligibility requirements listed above, but honestly believe that you can irrefutably prove that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist, please contact Greg Gerdes and request information about the wager option for this challenge.

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    What are you waiting for Sparkon?

    What are you so afraid of?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  110. Exosome says:
    @Greg Gerdes

    Cult of virus: “But this is still the original photograph, only colored for better understanding!”

    Researcher/Scientist: “Nope, this is self evidently called tampering with scientific evidence, as the coloration can also cloak or conceal something, it is not the original photo*. How do you make sure you don’t look at water bubbles from EM beam vaporization, or vesicles, exosomes?”

    * assuming it is indeed an altered photo and not a rendering.

  111. This “debate” is becoming ridiculous. The sum total of evidence I am aware of suggests that this covid-19 thing is ~90% hype by interested parties and ~10% real. The virus exists, but it is far less dangerous to healthy young and middle-aged people than lying MSM claim. If you are younger than 40 or 50, not obese, do not have heart disease or diabetes, covid-19 is less dangerous for you than crossing a city street. Masks were never scientifically proved to reduce the chances of covid-19 infection or transmission. They were proved to be totally useless in several flu studies before, even though flu virus is quite a bit bigger than covid-19 virus. But mask manufacturers make good money, and politicians are venal. Alleged mRNA-based vaccines (Prizer and Moderna) are likely exactly as useless as the masks. The original official narrative was that they prevent the infection. As data that it’s a lie accumulated, the official narrative changed: they do not prevent the infection, they prevent serious symptoms. You are still supposed to call them vaccines, even though even if this new narrative were true (which I doubt), they cannot be called vaccines: a vaccine is something that makes you immune system kill the pathogen before it can proliferate. But some companies are making good money, and politicians are venal. So, expect the vaccination to become obligatory, like taxes.

    But I would also like to tell the Americans here that we got this BS not as bad as Europe. I just went to Egypt, flew through Frankfurt on my way there and back. The Egyptians en masse do not believe this BS. Virtually nobody wears a mask except where it is required: Western-stile hotels, museums, and police checkpoints. I was there more than two weeks, went everywhere w/o a mask, and did not get anything (according to RT-PCR test you are required to take before flying back). Frankfurt is a totally different story. Germany always had more intrusive “security” than the US, but now it’s concentration camp-stile. They screen your belongings and search you at least twice, even though you are coming off an airplane, so you were searched before. Coming back to the US from Germany felt like leaving a madhouse: everything is a lot more normal, “security” is the same as before this scam, etc.

    Bottom line: we got some stupid restrictions and mandates (you still have to wear a useless mask at the airport and in-flight), but we are nowhere near as mad and cucked as Europe. Yes, places like Egypt or Mexico are less crazy, but given a choice between the US and Europe I’d choose the US every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

  112. Exosome says:
    @Sparkon

    I photographed a unicorn today, in the park.

    I just added the horn for clarification.

    • Replies: @Greg Gerdes
    , @Sparkon
  113. @AnonFromTN

    AnonFromTN:

    The virus exists

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 is alleged to be a complete, singular, visible, tangible, isolable, identifiable, characterizable, literal autonomous physical entity that has been scientifically authenticated via electron microscopy and genomic sequencing.

    FACT: If SARS-CoV-2 actually exists, it can be proven to exist.

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 has never been proven to exist.

    FACT: Those who allege that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist are lying.

    If SARS-CoV-2 does in fact exist AnonFromTN, then you should be interested in this:

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    I look forward to hearing from you.

  114. @Exosome

    Exosome:

    I photographed a unicorn today

    Finally we have real irrefutable proof!

    That will shut the skeptics up once and for all. I mean – what more do people need?

    • Replies: @Exosome
  115. Sparkon says:
    @Greg Gerdes

    Don’t hold your breath, slick. I doubt anyone with a lick of sense would dox himself by emailing you.

    If you think those images of SARS-CoV-2 are fake, then you should take up your case and make your bet with NIAID.

    https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/media-contacts

    Meanwhile, here’s a little traveling music for your journey to ‘ignore.’

    Little Jimmy Dickens, “May the Bird of Paradise Fly Up Your Nose”

    • Replies: @Greg Gerdes
  116. Exosome says:
    @Greg Gerdes

    If it looks like a horse, walks like a horse and runs like a horse, it is self evidently a unicorn.
    The photo proves it, especially after the clarification made.
    I observed the unicorn to eat horses, cunningly lurking in the park preying on them.

  117. Sparkon says:
    @Exosome

    Thanks for illustrating the typical apples and oranges comparison commonly advanced by nitwits at Unz Review, as if your photo had anything at all to do with COVID-19.

    As I’ve said before, the first pillar of intelligence is the ability to distinguish one thing from another, so obviously, you haven’t advanced very far.

    • LOL: Exosome
    • Replies: @Exosome
  118. Exosome says:
    @Sparkon

    As I’ve said before, the first pillar of intelligence is the ability to distinguish one thing from another.

    That’s funny coming from the cult of virus, who call a “virus culture” an isolate, that’s nowhere to be found, unreproducible as well.

    Don’t you “zone flooders” have any self respect?

    I give you another lol.
    Have you ever tried as a comedian?.

  119. @Sparkon

    Sparkon:

    If you think those images of SARS-CoV-2 are fake, then you should take up your case and make your bet with NIAID.

    Like I said earlier;

    FACT: Not one person who alleges that SARS-CoV-2 exists has ever mustered the courage, integrity and character to put their money where their mealy mouth is and accept the challenge to bet that they can irrefutably prove that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist.

    We can now add Sparkon to the long list of self-deceiving coronacultists who lack the courage, integrity and character to put their money where their mealy mouths are.

  120. Ron Unz says:
    @AnonFromTN

    This “debate” is becoming ridiculous. The sum total of evidence I am aware of suggests that this covid-19 thing is ~90% hype by interested parties and ~10% real. The virus exists, but it is far less dangerous to healthy young and middle-aged people than lying MSM claim. If you are younger than 40 or 50, not obese, do not have heart disease or diabetes, covid-19 is less dangerous for you than crossing a city street. Masks were never scientifically proved to reduce the chances of covid-19 infection or transmission. They were proved to be totally useless in several flu studies before, even though flu virus is quite a bit bigger than covid-19 virus. But mask manufacturers make good money, and politicians are venal. Alleged mRNA-based vaccines (Prizer and Moderna) are likely exactly as useless as the masks. The original official narrative was that they prevent the infection. As data that it’s a lie accumulated, the official narrative changed: they do not prevent the infection, they prevent serious symptoms. You are still supposed to call them vaccines, even though even if this new narrative were true (which I doubt), they cannot be called vaccines: a vaccine is something that makes you immune system kill the pathogen before it can proliferate.

    That’s very interesting. It’s always extremely helpful to get the opinion of someone who actually is a technical expert in a closely-related field.

    I’d just seen some similar claims regarding masking, but hadn’t been sure how seriously to take them. And I hadn’t seen that analysis of the mRNA “vaccines” in the MSM, though admittedly I haven’t been following the issue too closely.

    But the very sharp age-skew of the fatality rates of Covid-19 has certainly been reported, though admittedly not emphasized in the screaming headlines. For example, I think the estimates have been that the death rate of those under 40 is something like 0.01% or 1 in 10,000, even including the obese or those with medical conditions, making it much less lethal than various mild illnesses.

    • Replies: @Exosome
  121. Exosome says:
    @Ron Unz

    I would be capable to explain to you in easy terms the problem with “virus cultures” and what the implications of never achieved isolation of any postulated “virus” that is allegedly a pathogen means, and what consequences arise from this scientific fraud.

    We “deniers” won’t go away by ignoring us, criminalizing us, calling us names and defaming us, just as it took 50+ years for eg Ron Unz to realize, those “holocaust deniers” have serious points to make rendering the official narrative a lie.

  122. @Max Payne

    Got it, Max, I wanted to hear his take. I might be retarded, but your are for sure.

  123. @Exosome

    Exosome:

    We “deniers” won’t go away by ignoring us, criminalizing us, calling us names and defaming us, just as it took 50+ years for eg Ron Unz to realize, those “holocaust deniers” have serious points to make rendering the official narrative a lie.

    Exactly.

    Case in point:

    https://thisisaboutscience.com/

  124. @Exosome

    be capable to explain to you in easy terms the problem with “virus cultures” and what the implications of never achieved isolation of any postulated “virus” that is allegedly a pathogen means, and what consequences arise from this scientific fraud.

    You “would” and you “could”, but yet you didn’t.

  125. @AnonFromTN

    Vaccines just introduce a tiny amount of the viral pathogen to train the immune system. Depending on the immune system, the result can be no infections, no symptoms, slight symptoms, or for some people it doesn’t work at all. There is clear evidence of deaths being reduced, look at Israel.

    • Replies: @Greg Gerdes
    , @AnonFromTN
  126. @Eugene Norman

    Eugene Norman:

    Vaccines just introduce a tiny amount of the viral pathogen to train the immune system. Depending on the immune system, the result can be no infections, no symptoms, slight symptoms, or for some people it doesn’t work at all. There is clear evidence of deaths being reduced, look at Israel.

    Exactly what “viral pathogen” are you talking about here?

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  127. Sparkon says:
    @AnonFromTN

    but it is far less dangerous to healthy young and middle-aged people than lying MSM claim. If you are younger than 40 or 50, not obese, do not have heart disease or diabetes, covid-19 is less dangerous for you than crossing a city street. Masks were never scientifically proved to reduce the chances of covid-19 infection or transmission. They were proved to be totally useless in several flu studies before,

    In fact, Duke Univ. in Durham, NC, USA has imposed a temporary campus lock-down after unauthorized frat rush parties seem to have ignited what is being called “a rapidly escalating COVID outbreak.”

    https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article249948889.html

    Of course, it is far too early to tell if even mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 will have any long-term health effects, but it is generally recognized that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic are nevertheless capable of infecting others.

    As for your statement about masks, COVID-19 is not a flu, so it’s just another irrelevant apples to oranges comparison.

    In any event, if you read those flu studies carefully, in at least some cases, the authors acknowledge poor mask wearing adherence during the studies.

    …some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
    — CDC

    Beyond that, most of the participants in these studies, and in the commonly-cited DANMASK study, wore disposable surgical masks, which have a different purpose, fit poorly, and are fabricated from either plastic or paper, not cotton.

    As I’ve noted before, the biggest obvious problem with the typical, disposable, light blue surgical mask is the poor fit due to the way the masks are fabricated, which results in the areas between the ear loops bulging out to create large gaps on either side of these masks, and at the bottom, gaps are usually obvious and apparent with people wearing disposable surgical masks.

    Image: Nelson Labs

    Hydrophilic cotton masks fit much more snugly than disposable, hydrophobic surgical masks, and I will argue that the novel coronavirus and the blobs of moisture carrying it are more likely to get trapped in the myriad, moisture-loving fibers of a cotton mask than in the moisture-repellent plastic textures of a disposable surgical mask.

    Most disposable surgical masks fit poorly, but the material in them may have some utility, and I would like to see not only SEM images of the three distinct layers in the disposable surgical masks, but also mechanical simulations of the type done by researchers at the Univ. of Illinois, which showed that multi-layer cotton masks were quite effective in blocking droplets and aerosols of the size created by human respiration and snaring 100 nm particles standing in for SARS-CoV-2 in the simulations

    “We found that all of the fabrics tested are considerably effective at blocking the 100 nanometer particles carried by high-velocity droplets similar to those that may be released by speaking, coughing and sneezing, even as a single layer,” Saif said. “With two or three layers, even the more permeable fabrics, such as T-shirt cloth, achieve droplet-blocking efficiency that is similar to that of a medical mask, while still maintaining comparable or better breathability.”

    This past summer, California was plagued by a series of destructive wildfires that released a torrent of unknown toxins into the air and resulted in unhealthy AQI levels over wide areas of the state. This article from the Sierra Club has some worthwhile information about masks:

    https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/what-s-best-mask-for-covid-and-wildfire-smoke

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @gsjackson
  128. Sparkon:

    it is generally recognized that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic are nevertheless capable of infecting others.

    Says the self-deceiving dimwit who can’t even prove that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist.

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

  129. @Sparkon

    As I’ve noted before, the biggest obvious problem with the typical, disposable, light blue surgical mask is the poor fit due to the way the masks are fabricated, which results in the areas between the ear loops bulging out to create large gaps on either side of these masks, and at the bottom, gaps are usually obvious and apparent with people wearing disposable surgical masks.

    90% of the people wear these masks. What’s more, they are deemed acceptable where a mask is required (in stores, most Universities, airports, in-flight, etc.). They are definitely useless, but the manufacturers make tidy profits. Case closed.

    In fact, Duke Univ. in Durham, NC, USA has imposed a temporary campus lock-down after unauthorized frat rush parties seem to have ignited what is being called “a rapidly escalating COVID outbreak.”

    That would have been an argument is there were two parties, in one of which participants wore masks, and in the other didn’t, and the data on the consequences of both parties were compared. Otherwise, it’s a classical logical fallacy: “post-hoc” does not mean “propter hoc”.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  130. @Eugene Norman

    Vaccines just introduce a tiny amount of the viral pathogen to train the immune system.

    Vaccine is something that makes your immune system produce antibodies to the pathogen that neutralize it upon entry, preventing its proliferation. This something could be killed or attenuated pathogen, or viral vector encoding immunogenic surface protein (or its part) of the pathogen. These approaches yielded effective vaccines against numerous pathogens, from tuberculosis to Ebola virus. There was never an effective mRNA-based vaccine against anything, as mRNA is unstable: there are tons of RNases, i.e., RNA-destroying enzymes, in the air around us, in all extracellular fluids in our body, and inside the cells in the cytoplasm. mRNA can be chemically modified to make it resistant to RNases, but our ribosomes (protein-making machines inside the cell) do not work with modified mRNAs, and therefore the proteins encoded by them are not produced. Endogenous mRNAs in the cytoplasm are protected by bound proteins, and even in this case their half-life is usually measured in minutes to hours.

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  131. Sparkon says:
    @AnonFromTN

    They are definitely useless

    No, I don’t think they are “useless.” Surgical masks are not optimal, but they are better than nothing, because that type of mask will block or at least impede and slow down some portion of the blobs of moisture exhaled from the lungs and upper respiratory tract, and in fact that was their original purpose – to keep surgeons from breathing and drooling directly onto wounds, hence the name “surgical mask.”

    You also wrote:

    That would have been an argument is there were two parties, in one of which participants wore masks, and in the other didn’t, and the data on the consequences of both parties were compared. Otherwise, it’s a classical logical fallacy: “post-hoc” does not mean “propter hoc”.

    You misunderstood my argument entirely, The bit about Duke had nothing to do with masks. If you’re going to challenge what I said, you need to understand, and repeat, my whole argument, but you left out my important points, i.e. that we don’t know if there are any long-term health effects to even mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19, but we do know that all people infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2 are capable of infecting others, even young Dukies.

    • LOL: Exosome
  132. @AnonFromTN

    None of that refutes my points. The vaccine creates antibodies. The immune system can then either neutralise or attenuate the disease.

    Despite all that verbiage, you haven’t really dealt with the empirical evidence. Look at Israel:

    https://m.dw.com/en/vaccine-prevents-989-of-covid-19-deaths-israel/a-56638291

  133. @Greg Gerdes

    Exactly what “viral pathogen” are you talking about here?

    That would be Covid 19. Surprised you never heard about it. It’s been on the news a lot.

    • Replies: @Flying Dutchman
    , @Exosome
  134. @Eugene Norman

    Exactly what “viral pathogen” are you talking about here?

    That would be Covid 19. Surprised you never heard about it. It’s been on the news a lot.

    “The news” lies about everything of significance, most of all about the danger, and perhaps the very existence, of “Covid 19”. Surprised you never heard about it. Is this visit to Unz your first step outside the imperial media’s sensory-deprivation chamber?

  135. Exosome says:
    @Eugene Norman

    Show the full reproducible genome please, point to it.
    Does not exist outside a computer, definitely not in nature.

    You only got “variants” or “mutants” because your “isolation” is so fraudulent and void of science, hence constantly different genomes generated from the fragments by the software programs.

    • Agree: Greg Gerdes
    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  136. Greg Gerdes says: • Website

    Greg Gerdes:

    “Exactly what “viral pathogen” are you talking about here?”

    Eugene Norman:

    “That would be Covid 19. Surprised you never heard about it. It’s been on the news a lot.”

    NO-vid-NEIN-teen is an alleged disease.

    Surprised you never learned that.

    It’s been explained so often and well in the news that most retarded 4th graders know the difference.

    What’s your excuse Eugene?

    Now please tell us:

    “Exactly what “viral pathogen” are you talking about here?”

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  137. gsjackson says:
    @Sparkon

    “…rapidly escalating covid outbreak” on campus. What a joke. Have any of these college kids ever even gotten sick, let alone hospitalized, after being classified as a covid case? One after another these athletes, college and professional, are put into quarantine after “testing positive.” Since the NBA and MLB resumed play last summer have any of them even gotten sick, let alone hospitalized?

    I would give my Duke degree back to them if they would take it. Last I heard they were using student fees to pay for sex change operations. Truly embarrassing.

  138. @Exosome

    Show the full reproducible genome please, point to it. It not exist outside a computer, definitely not in nature.

    Here’s the thing. I personally don’t have the genome to hand myself. I could send you “computer” or microscopic photos of the virus that every single virologist in the world believes in and has been isolated many times, one that has multiple variants that virologists have also isolated from actual strains that they have examined themselves, but you would still rant about it being just “computers”. I could send you multiple virology reports by experts and you’d shout conspiracy theory.

    Nothing is going to convince you.

    Not because you are smarter than the experts on this but because you are as dumb as a brick. You just aren’t smarter than the scientists and your burden of proof is that we have to convince you by sending you the “genome” whatever the fuck that means.

    You might want to also consider that cretins on the internet aren’t the ones who should be demanding proof of anything. You are the one making extraordinary claims and therefore need to provide extraordinary proof, rather than demand the absolutely ordinary and clearly existing proof that experts agree on, and that you don’t accept either, because you are too stupid to understand what the proof is.

    • Replies: @Flying Dutchman
    , @Exosome
  139. @Greg Gerdes

    I’m pretty sure the virus has never been described anywhere outside the conspiracy media as a “alleged disease”.

    Anyway you know when your teachers said you weren’t that bright but you thought you were. You were wrong and they were right.

    • Replies: @Greg Gerdes
    , @Greg Gerdes
  140. @Eugene Norman

    virus that every single virologist in the world believes in

    Yes, they religiously “believe in” this detail just as they believe in their overall “secular” technocrat version of dominion theology. And their careers also depend upon telling the lies they’re paid to tell.

    I could send you multiple virology reports by experts and you’d shout conspiracy theory.

    That’s because they comprise a conspiracy which melds a fundamentalist technocratic cult with the most extreme manifestation of careerism and corruption.

    Not because you are smarter than the experts on this

    You mean like the system economists who all said there was no housing bubble?

    All system experts are the exact same paid liar chanting some version of “there is no housing bubble.”

    I’m pretty sure the virus has never been described anywhere outside the conspiracy media as a “alleged disease”.

    Just as it’s never been described anywhere outside the corporate globalist media as a real disease.

  141. Exosome says:
    @Eugene Norman

    I personally don’t have the genome to hand myself

    That’s already the end of the discussion right here.
    No one has the genome, since it does not exist in nature.
    You are free to find it and then we go on.

    • Agree: Greg Gerdes
  142. Greg Gerdes says: • Website
    @Eugene Norman

    Eugene:

    Anyway you know when your teachers said you weren’t that bright but you thought you were. You were wrong and they were right.

    Eugene, I’m still waiting for you or any teacher I’ve ever had to accept the challenge to prove that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist:

    A \$5,000.00 reward is being offered to the first (past or present) employee of a Montana State / County / City Health Department and / or member of a Montana State / County / City Board of Health and / or member of a Montana State / County / City disease related Task Force; who irrefutably proves that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist.

    Note: If you do not meet the eligibility requirements listed above, but honestly believe that you can irrefutably prove that a novel corona virus named – SARS-CoV-2 – has in fact been conclusively proven to actually exist, please contact Greg Gerdes and request information about the wager option for this challenge.

    https://gab.com/FightBackMontana

    Remember Eugene; to cravenly refuse to bet that you can prove what you allege has been proven, is a tacit admission that you know what you allege – has not been proven.

    What are you waiting for Eugene?

    What are you so afraid of?

  143. Greg Gerdes says: • Website
    @Eugene Norman

    [Too much off-topic nonsense. Stop spamming these comment-threads.]

    Eugene:

    I’m pretty sure the virus has never been described anywhere outside the conspiracy media as a “alleged disease”.

    Eugene, not only has SARS-CoV-2 never been proven to exist, it has not even been proven to be the cause of the so-called NO-vid-NEIN-teen disease. This then makes the so-called “disease” an alleged disease.

    Here are some other facts for you to consider Eugene:

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 is alleged to be a complete, singular, visible, tangible, isolable, identifiable, characterizable, literal autonomous physical entity that has been scientifically authenticated via electron microscopy and genomic sequencing.

    FACT: If SARS-CoV-2 actually exists, it can be proven to exist.

    FACT: SARS-CoV-2 has never been proven to exist.

    FACT: Those who allege that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist are lying.

  144. GARYM2 says:

    Here are a number of studies showing masks don’t work
    https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

  145. GARYM2 says:

    Proof that masks, even n95 masks can’t protect you from viruses.

    You can easily smell tobacco smoke wearing an n95 mask. I’ve tried it. You can even smell it far away from the smoker. In general virus particles are smaller so if you can smell smoke, virus particles can also easly get through.

    Both tobacco smoke and virus particles are in tiny water vapor particles when you exhale. This makes both roughly around the same particle size, though immediate evaporation will make viruse particles even smaller than most smoke.

    Size of tobacco smoke particles 0.01 to 0.4 microns
    Size of virus particles 0.005 to 0.3 microns
    Covid 19 is said to be 0.12 microns in size.

    Neither do masks block aersols on exhalation as video experiments show. The aerosols simply go around and through the masks and drift in the air.

  146. I wouldn’t dismiss the potential health side-effects of going masked. If you’re getting a headache from wearing one – and many were – that’s surely a sign of mild oxygen deprivation, or of too much carbon dioxide in the blood, perhaps. Certainly, this is the sort of thing that scientists should be studying, and can do so quite easily: track the masked and unmasked and test for hypoxia and hypercapnia. For any medical intervention, the side-effects ought to be studied.

    A more important side-effect is the boosted viral load (from “rebreathing” virus particles that were caught by the mask) and increased risk of viral and bacterial pneumonia (again, from breathing through a dirty mask all day).

    One wonders whether infectious COVID patients were masked while in hospital, and what difference all those side-effects might have made to mortality. It once again seems like something worth studying, but I don’t know if it has been.

  147. @Desert Fox

    China provided Australia with the DNA sequence for COVID-19 in the first half of January, 2020. The same information was provided to every nation on earth (there’s nothing special about Australia). The sequencing was confirmed in many other nations (those advanced enough to have DNA sequencers).

    Mutations are identified by variations in that sequence. That’s how we know about the UK, South African and Brazilian mutations. There were also harmless mutations. [email protected]

    • Agree: Stephane
  148. Chinaman says:

    I know it is hard to appeal to white people’s common sense and logic since there is none but may I propose an aspect that have not been discussed and also explain why ALL Asians wear masks in public.

    First thing first, I hate wearing masks.

    It is not mindless compliance or even the belief that it will eradicate the virus that Asian wears mask.

    It is etiquette and a form of respect to fellow citizens.

    You don’t want to be the only one not wearing a masks when everyone is wearing one. Some people or vulnerable citizens believe masks works so we wear them to make them feel more comfortable when we are with them. A bit of individual discomfort to make everyone comfortable.

    It is putting others before ourselves. Simple as that. Nothing to do with the masks or whether it works. Something that selfish white people will never understand.

    Most Americans love to talk and talk loud to gain attention ( baboons?) and thus discharge a lot of virus particles when they speak. You can always hear an American talking about himselves from across the room. This may have a lot to do with the COVID’s rapid transmission in America compared to Asia So mask or no masks, trying to speak softly and not trying to be bombastic as Amercians are wont might do more to stop COVID than masks. Masks ain’t going to stop loud Amercians.

    Shutting the fuck up and listen might do more than masks can ever do.

    Don’t get me started about European. COVID might be divine punishment for man kissing each other.

    • Replies: @Radicalcenter
  149. After a perfectly rational article that I wanted to send to “normie” acquaintances and relatives, the author decides to make unpleasant comments about Jews, blacks, etc., for no reason whatsoever. This is not the way to reach beyond the “echo chamber” to help people educate themselves and change their position on mask mandates.

  150. @Chinaman

    A Chinese guy complaining about people who talk loudly? Hello pot, this is kettle.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Thomas Dalton Comments via RSS