ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---

It was greatly slowed. From over 200K cases per day in January 2021 to less than 5K in June. The booster that slowed Delta was just a smaller dose of the same vaccine.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---

It was greatly slowed. From over 200K cases per day in January 2021 to less than 5K in June. The booster that slowed Delta was just a smaller dose of the same vaccine.

---

Delta ravaged the US late Summer and Fall 2021.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---

It was greatly slowed. From over 200K cases per day in January 2021 to less than 5K in June. The booster that slowed Delta was just a smaller dose of the same vaccine.

---

Delta ravaged the US late Summer and Fall 2021.

---

Correct, though as you mentioned, it was slowed by the booster.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---

It was greatly slowed. From over 200K cases per day in January 2021 to less than 5K in June. The booster that slowed Delta was just a smaller dose of the same vaccine.

---

Delta ravaged the US late Summer and Fall 2021.

---

Correct, though as you mentioned, it was slowed by the booster.

---

The booster was intended to target the Delta variant.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---

It was greatly slowed. From over 200K cases per day in January 2021 to less than 5K in June. The booster that slowed Delta was just a smaller dose of the same vaccine.

---

Delta ravaged the US late Summer and Fall 2021.

---

Correct, though as you mentioned, it was slowed by the booster.

---

The booster was intended to target the Delta variant.

---

Nope.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/current-boosters-not-delta-targeted-ones-called-best-bet-for-now

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

What vaccines are you aware of that require 4 boosters within 12-18 months which have yet to prove they stop spread in any meaningful way?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

That standard should be the minimum justification for mask mandates and rules whether by the state or private.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

What vaccines are you aware of that require 4 boosters within 12-18 months which have yet to prove they stop spread in any meaningful way?

---

I don't know of any that require four boosters in a year, including Covid. Flu vaccines wear off pretty quickly after six months, but we don't worry about it because flu is seasonal. Obviously they don't stop the spread of flu.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

That standard should be the minimum justification for mask mandates and rules whether by the state or private.

---

That makes no sense.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

That standard should be the minimum justification for mask mandates and rules whether by the state or private.

---

That makes no sense.

---

If masks don't significantly slow spread, or outright stop spread, then there's no justification for mask mandates and rules.

Why doesn't that make sense?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

They don't even slow it in any meaningful way.

I think it was a strategic mistake to go the mRNA spike protein route. It was quicker and easier to produce than live attenuated viral approach, and possibly faster to evaluate negative impact given the novel nature of COVID, but the future should hopefully see nasal spray vaccines that might truly be able to slow spread.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

What vaccines are you aware of that require 4 boosters within 12-18 months which have yet to prove they stop spread in any meaningful way?

---

I don't know of any that require four boosters in a year, including Covid. Flu vaccines wear off pretty quickly after six months, but we don't worry about it because flu is seasonal. Obviously they don't stop the spread of flu.

---

The flu vaccine imparts immunity in a portion of recipients. We don't worry as much about flu because we have therapeutics like Tamiflu that work extremely well.

And we are on the 4th dose, and some countries are talking about a mandate for it.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

We spoke of using masks to stop community spread. We found out that unless you follow strict mask protocols with N95, you're not slowing community spread by any meaningful factor. With vaccines we've found out that unless you're immune system is jacked up due to a recent shot of the vaccine, you're not slowing community spread, and with the latest variants even that doesn't matter.

---

We spoke of using masks to slow community spread, which they do. It's true that vaccines need to be up to date in order to work, but that is typical of vaccines.

---

You just said they're not intended to slow community spread.

No you're saying they do slow community spread.

---

I said they're not intended to stop community spread. That's the standard you all want to apply, but it's never been the standard.

---

That standard should be the minimum justification for mask mandates and rules whether by the state or private.

---

That makes no sense.

---

If masks don't significantly slow spread, or outright stop spread, then there's no justification for mask mandates and rules.

Why doesn't that make sense?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where it says good quality masks are highly effective when properly worn.

---

except that they do not stop community spread.

you have a forest & trees problem.

---

No one's claiming that they do. You have a straw man problem.

---

No. You do. My statement every time is that masks do not stop community spread, because the data is clear on that question. That renders moot your micro-level assertion that A mask can, in theory, stop A virus from infecting someone.

Show us evidence that masks stopped community spread. You can't. Because they didn't.

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---