One works, the other one doesn't, yet you're bassackwards on both.
Bonus points if you can't figure out how you keep getting more pandemic, less political power, nor why you're watching your freedom go up in flames.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yup. Imagine being a landlord who can't kick out people living for free.
Wait, I thought there was a no-taking without due process clause in the Constitution?
Oh, silly me. Those are just words.
I disagree, on a professional level.
Me: BSN, RN with over 15 years experience in an operating room. I wore a surgical mask over 40 hours a week. My OR experience began at University Hospital, University of North Carolina, they continued when I relocated to the SF Bay Area, working at a hospital affiliated with Stanford University Medical School.
I also was a commissioned officer in the USAR, Nursing Corps, that after 19 years of enlisted service. My wife is also an OR nurse, recently retired. We agree on the mask issue.
I won't be getting "the jab" either.
YOu: I know you're an RN, don't know your experience level, I think you've said you're an ER nurse.
Disagree all you like.
You can't out-argue the facts:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
All previous tests, and studies of tests (which is polling, not science), focused on whether simple masks protect the wearers, which they were never designed nor intended to do, since ever. Such "studies" were designed deliberately to confuse the issue, and turn common sense on its head. As I've noted, that's like testing seatbelts to see how well they protect the pedestrian you hit while wearing them, or testing gun safety by only looking at the effect on the burglar you shot, rather than the homeowner.
They're assbackwards, on purpose. Nobody is that bag-of-hammers stupid, so all that remains is the obvious: it's a deliberate attempt to push people into either total isolation, or into not-a-vaxx.
The study referenced above is the only one before or since this started, AFAIK, to test how well snot masks work at containing virus from the wearer, which is what they're FOR, since the 1800s, including you and your team in the OR.
The answer was 99.9% effective, even with air sampling for 30 minutes after exposure, from 6'.
Compared to 0% for wearing nothing.
Case closed.
No matter for whom that reality is inconvenient.
That means indoors among a group of people.
That doesn't mean when you're outside in sunshine spread out, or solo in your own car.
Stupid is still stupid.
The only thing mask mandates have proven is that people are too ornery and stupid to follow mask mandates, or adhere to the same protocol you follow in the OR.
Just like gun laws don't stop gun crime magically.
Because people are bastards. Bastards-coated bastards with bastard filling.
QED
‘
“ We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”.
We’ll’ Just have to disagree. My position is based on experience and other studies.
By all means, post inks to any "other studies" you have.
To date, I haven't seen so many as one other that expressly deals with face mask transmission as they're intended to be used. They aren't and never were to protect the wearer, which has been the obvious 800-lb gorilla-sized flaw in every study, and poll of studies, committed to print in the last 2 years, which is why they're all so much horseshit.
It's almost like they deliberately assigned the most actually retarded kids to do the research, on purpose.
Post a Comment