Submitted by goodguyfdny t3_zh9iuh in nyc
Comments
iRedditAlreadyyy t1_izlqefg wrote
Love how you think a once in a lifetime historic pandemic that affected every corner of the world was only capable of making people sad in NY.
cpuphry t1_iznn9my wrote
the mind rot is real yeesh
[deleted] t1_izo0yri wrote
[removed]
iRedditAlreadyyy t1_izp9dqe wrote
You were required for the last like 60+ years to get a vaccine before attending ANY school in the United States. Any of them. You also are required to get vaccinated to fly to other countries.
You guys have just pissed and moaned about COVID and its just a total self own every time.
Imagine crying about masks while you’re legally required to wear pants and a seatbelt in public or in a car. Like bro, go live in the woods if the basics of society are too much of a burden
[deleted] t1_izpa219 wrote
[removed]
iRedditAlreadyyy t1_izpbiaw wrote
You’re required to show proof of age to order a drink inside a restaurant in the United States. You’re required to show you’re wearing pants in any restaurant as public nudity is illegal.
Again, you’re gurgling on about basic rules of society. And the appearance of a historical pandemic in which MILLIONS have died, caused us to shift something’s around to navigate this pandemic (similar to how previous pandemics in the United States also required masks and vaccinations).
You’re just pissed by the inconvenience.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqdfkg wrote
Adults are not required to show "proof of age" to walk into a restaurant or a museum are they? Since when are lockdowns and forcing people to take drugs they don't want and show papers normal outside or China?
iRedditAlreadyyy t1_izqskab wrote
Since when are lockdowns a thing? Bro. They have mandatory evacuations for natural disasters and mandatory curfews during times of civil unrest. Are you suggesting the government doesn’t have the authority to do these things? Lmfao.
[deleted] t1_izqkkof wrote
This isn't the first vaccine required to go to school, lol. Wake up you sheep.
magicsqueegee t1_izmif55 wrote
I worked in schools for the pandemic and let me tell you these poor kids were so traumatized by the masks. Everyday we'd have dozens just breaking down in tears, tearing impotently at the paper masks we locked to their faces, gasping for air as they couldn't bring in enough oxygen.
Oh wait, there were almost no issue at all. (In fact the only recurring issue I witnessed was one kid kept eating his masks so we had to get good cloth ones for him and they'd only last a week or so)
22thoughts t1_izno5ee wrote
How I read this comment: first paragraph, downvote, second paragraph, upvote. Lol
[deleted] t1_izngjwr wrote
[deleted]
sysyphusishappy t1_izo0l00 wrote
I love how you don't even mention lockdowns, closing schools, and forcing kids to eat on the cold ground outside in December.
But yeah, masks are just a piece of cloth so who cares right? There's no way masks on top of the lockdowns and "social distancing" can lead kids to feel isolated or cause other problems.
FrankFriendo t1_izoj021 wrote
Lockdowns. You absolute pussy.
[deleted] t1_izoknpt wrote
[removed]
FrankFriendo t1_izomdmw wrote
We didn’t even do an actual lockdown. I can’t believe you’re this much of a pussy.
Weird that the global economy is fucked up from the pandemic but you’re so dumb and brain fried from grifters that you think democrats stopping you from sitting in a bar is what did it. Damn. You’re a selfish little coward. No masks. No vaccines. You probably spent the first 6 months of the pandemic claiming it wasn’t real. You’re a fucking bitch made clown. You probably don’t even live in NYC.
sysyphusishappy t1_izosa7p wrote
> We didn’t even do an actual lockdown. I can’t believe you’re this much of a pussy
Oh. So it wasn't an "actual" lockdown like China did, so arresting people for walking in the park, the government deciding which workers are "essential", what constitutes a "meal" that would allow us to sit in a bar, banning funerals, banning parties, demanding papers to eat in a restaurant, and forcing people to take big pharma products or risk being fired was not authoritarian?
What do you think authoritarianism is?
> Weird that the global economy is fucked up from the pandemic but you’re so dumb and brain fried from grifters that you think democrats stopping you from sitting in a bar is what did it. Damn. You’re a selfish little coward
No, the global economy is "fucked up" because of the authoritarian response to covid that shut down a $23 trillion economy and printed trillions of dollars out of thin air as did almost all western countries.
> No masks.
Peer reviewed data shows that cloth and surgical masks block 10% and 12% of COVID aerosols respectively. About as good at "reducing transmission" as hijabs are at reducing impure thoughts.
https://uwaterloo.ca/news/media/study-supports-widespread-use-better-masks-curb-covid-19
I think you need to update your fascist talking points because even the CDC tacitly admitted cloth masks do nothing. Yet you are such a vicious fascist you insist the government force people to wear them, in direct contradiction to the actual science.
> No vaccines.
I took the first vaccine and still got COVID since they do almost nothing to protect against omicron. BTW what percentage of the population do you think are getting their 4th boosters now? How many boosters does it take? 10? 🤣🤣🤣
FrankFriendo t1_izou4dj wrote
Hahahahaha you’re a weak, male Karen. This is funny. You selfish little goon. This is like watching a child throw a tantrum.
Weird that there’s a lot of info about masks slowing the spread but you’re obsessed with cloth masks not being perfect. Nevermind that masking worked and there’s endless info to prove that simple fact. You’re too big of a selfish pussy. You’ll listen to whoever lets you continue to live like a little selfish boy. Boo-hooo.
[deleted] t1_izove53 wrote
[removed]
FrankFriendo t1_izp0l8g wrote
Can you explain how the spread of covid indoors has been proven time and time again to be greatly reduced by mask wearing? And every time masking went down, the hospitalization rates went up?
Why do they wear masks in Japan when illnesses go around? Why do doctors wear masks?
You are the biggest loser coward and I swear you don’t even live in NYC. Cherry pick more info to make it okay that you were a selfish pissbaby during a pandemic where people made actual sacrifices.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp1iqj wrote
> Can you explain how the spread of covid indoors has been proven time and time again to be greatly reduced by mask wearing? And every time masking went down, the hospitalization rates went up?
Lol. How did masks defy the laws of physics to do this? The peer reviewed data from actual scientists in a physics journal are crystal clear. Cloth masks let through 90% of COVID aerosols. Surgical masks let through 12%.
Please explain to me how letting through 90% of COVID aerosols led to "greatly reduced" spread? Would a condom that let through 90% of HIV particles "greatly reduce" the spread of HIV?
Or maybe you think that PHYSICS is less of a hard science than "public health"?
> You are the biggest loser coward and I swear you don’t even live in NYC. Cherry pick more info to make it okay that you were a selfish pissbaby during a pandemic where people made actual sacrifices.
Ah yes, posting peer reviewed data from a physics journal makes me a "loser coward" who doesn't live in NYC. 🤣 Denying the laws of physics to defend government policy is what truly brave new yorkers do.
FrankFriendo t1_izp7jzm wrote
You’re ignoring that if both parties are masked, transmission goes WAY down. Look it up. There’s enough data out there.
Not sure why that isn’t cracking into your brain but I guess you found your factoid about masks not being perfect so now your pissbaby selfish ass can stop looking. Anti-mask people are so pathetic.
[deleted] t1_izp8x1p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izp97g6 wrote
You're getting pretty desperate here ignoring the laws of physics as they apply to epidemiology, lol.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp9gbx wrote
I don't... Which peer reviewed physics journal did you cite data from?
[deleted] t1_izpaf26 wrote
Citing the blockage of aerosols by these masks only reinforces the point that they reduce transmission of the disease. Go take an epidemiology 101 course.
sysyphusishappy t1_izpav1d wrote
> Citing the blockage of aerosols by these masks only reinforces the point that they reduce transmission of the disease
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Truly amazing how leftists hate science and data. The "blockage of aerosols" is TEN PERCENT. As in they let through 90% of COVID aerosols.
How does that "reinforce the point" that masks work? Would a condom that let through 90% of HIV particles "reinforce the point" that condoms stop HIV?
FrankFriendo t1_izpbutm wrote
“Leftists”
You really don’t know what words mean. And you’re so confident that you don’t look like the biggest idiot mark out there.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqcx9p wrote
Oh. So the squad are not leftists?
[deleted] t1_izpokgw wrote
And that 10% compounds in a rapidly spreading virus. As I've been telling you for hours. Please go educate yourself. You can't claim to be the scientist in the room if you're the one who keeps plugging their ears whenever I mention the word "epidemiology".
sysyphusishappy t1_izqb9ah wrote
> And that 10% compounds in a rapidly spreading virus.
Lol but the 90% doesn't compound because reasons. Got it.
[deleted] t1_izqie00 wrote
The 90% compounds much less than 100%. That's what I mean by "the 10% compounds rapidly". 1.9^100 < 2^100.
I'm sorry, but that's just how math works.
FrankFriendo t1_izpamxb wrote
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119
Here’s one about mask wearing decreasing the spread of covid. Keep in mind, it means both parties are masked. Not just one person while you throw a temper tantrum like a baby with a full diaper.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqdobv wrote
Oh. Can you explain how this "public health" paper defies the laws of physics to make 10% effective masks "decrease the spread"?
FrankFriendo t1_izqgjm5 wrote
Ehhhhhhh. I think you’re beyond help.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqhgb4 wrote
Right because anyone who understands that the laws of physics are immutable and that "public health" is a psuedoscience is "being help".
[deleted] t1_izqk0g4 wrote
The issue is that you just don't understand physics or how it relates to epidemiology very well.
FrankFriendo t1_izpa65s wrote
You really found your one cherry-picked fact, perverted it to fit your selfish, scared narrative and now you just ignore all other data. It’s really remarkable that you’re not ashamed to look like such a pisspants child in public. Bravo!
Ieatclowns t1_izn2rp9 wrote
Locked? Gasping? Seriously. Those are some mollycoddled kids.
sagenumen t1_izlrs0d wrote
Yes. A single event caused this. You bellend.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo0u3c wrote
What "single event" was that? The pandemic? Why didn't it cause the same problems on Florida or Sweden?
sagenumen t1_izo3qlm wrote
That’s the point. I was being sarcastic. As evidenced by calling you a bellend at the end.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo45tc wrote
Oh. So what caused the current inflation we're seeing now? What caused the learning loss and rise in mental health issues in children?
sagenumen t1_izo4btg wrote
Democrats, obviously, right?
sysyphusishappy t1_izo5jnd wrote
Yes, democrat run states and cities locked people down for much longer, kept schools closed for much longer, and a democrat controlled congress voted for the "stimulus" bills, and a democrat president's "build back better" insane spending package, and then the truly insane "inflation reduction act" which for some reason is just another giant spending bill and is focused on climate change and not inflation.
If you're confused, go look at the unemployment rate in Florida vs New York or California. Why is it so much lower?
sagenumen t1_izo6v9m wrote
Are we talking about the same Florida that went after one of their employees for reporting the fact that they were deliberately defrauding people about their covid numbers? My family is in Florida and Florida is a cesspool with so many problems, I don’t know where to start.
I’m sorry, but if you’re still using these talking points in almost 2023, I can’t help you. Kindly fuck off back under your rock.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo7rrx wrote
> Are we talking about the same Florida that went after one of their employees for reporting the fact that they were deliberately defrauding people about their covid numbers?
I guess, but the fact that this was a total fabrication and there was zero evidence to back up this person's claims kinda says otherwise. This "employee" had a history of stalking and provided no actual evidence besides her own craziness to prove anything. She also disobeyed the actual epidemiologists she was working for. Trust the science and the experts though amiright?
Would love for you to tell me what her qualifications and job were.
But even if that was true, which it isn't, where are the "thousands of dead kids" you claimed allowing children to go to school caused? Where are the "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden or other European countries that opened schools and stopped masking kids a year or more before we did? Where are the "thousands of dead kids" in Africa?
[deleted] t1_izo851u wrote
>had a history of stalking and provided no actual evidence besides her own craziness to prove anything
I think you're mixing up her story with your own.
>But even if that was true, which it isn't, where are the "thousands of dead kids" you claimed allowing children to go to school caused? Where are the "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden or other European countries that opened schools and stopped masking kids a year or more before we did? Where are the "thousands of dead kids" in Africa?
Look at this bastard deny COVID deaths. Jfc. Go pull up some stats and shame yourself.
sagenumen t1_izo9k0g wrote
Right? I used to bike past the mobile morgues on Fifth Avenue all the time. What a morbid time.
The fact remains that no one knew what this disease was capable of, at first, and then idiots like this were ok wantonly sending children into school for whatever dumbass reasons. Fuck.
[deleted] t1_izo9zxq wrote
The reason is that they don't have any children and don't care about anyone else's.
marcsmart t1_izn337s wrote
These kind of takes are a reminder of what your fellow voters can be like. Jesus fucking Christ.
sysyphusishappy t1_iznysj5 wrote
Haha yeah, imagine being concerned about learning loss and massive spikes in depression and suicidal thoughts in children, overdoses, and mental issues. Locking people in their homes and destroying the economy had nothing to do with that!
MarbleFox_ t1_izo2x2n wrote
The alternative was thousands of dead kids, what the fuck is your problem?
sysyphusishappy t1_izo36gk wrote
Why weren't there "thousands of dead kids" on sweden or other countries in Europe that stopped masking kids and closing schools a year before we did? Why aren't there "thousands of dead kids" in south Africa or any country in Africa? Why aren't there "thousands of dead kids" in Florida?
I know you really LOVE authoritarianism, but it didn't even work
MarbleFox_ t1_izo5jh4 wrote
What the hell is the point you’re trying to make? South Africa had some of the most stringent policies in the world and Sweden had one of the highest death rates in the world.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo68yt wrote
> South Africa had some of the most stringent policies in the world and Sweden had one of the highest death rates in the world.
Evidence that south Africa or any of the dozens of countries in Africa had "one of the most stringent policies in the world"? You do realize that most people in Africa can barely afford food right?
As far as Sweden having "one of the highest death rates in the world" they are 42nd for COVID deaths per Capita. Italy, the US, the UK, Austria, Spain, and the US all had much higher deaths per Capita. The number one country for deaths per Capita is Peru, who closed their borders longer than pretty much any other country.
Still waiting for your source for "thousands of dead kids" in sweden? Or did that not happen?
Phaedrusnyc t1_izoatn3 wrote
"You do realize that most people in Africa can barely afford food right?" Aaaaaaand, that's where I stopped reading.
Wow, either a very bad troll or a very good simpleton.
[deleted] t1_izofwkw wrote
[removed]
Phaedrusnyc t1_izpi3wk wrote
Better at it than you, since, unlike you, I'm aware that: 1.There are 50 countries on the African continent, 2. 15 of them have >50% of their population living at poverty levels and 3. How numbers work, how geography works, and what the word "most" means, bigoted troll.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqblos wrote
Oh. So to be clear you think what, most of the countries in Africa are mostly middle class? 🤣 Why don't you explain to me why they didn't have the worst covid deaths in earth in Lagos? Unless maybe you think people who can barely afford to eat were "social distancing" and sitting in their pajamas on zoom calls like you were?
[deleted] t1_izo8m8s wrote
>south Africa or any of the dozens of countries in Africa had "one of the most stringent policies in the world"? You do realize that most people in Africa can barely afford food right?
Conflates South Africa with all of Africa. Lol!
>Still waiting for your source for "thousands of dead kids" in sweden? Or did that not happen?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101280
There you go! Took me all of 3 seconds to Google it for you!
sysyphusishappy t1_izo90le wrote
> Conflates South Africa with all of Africa. Lol!
Well, there are zero African countries with big death tolls from COVID and less than zero who had the "thousands of dead kids" you claimed would be the result from aññowing children to go to school. Explain.
Lol. Did you really just post a letter to the editor? Can you point me to where this letter has data with "thousands of dead kids"? 😆
[deleted] t1_izo9vfb wrote
>zero African countries with big death tolls from COVID
They are known for their record keeping, after all.
>and less than zero who had the "thousands of dead kids" you claimed would be the result from aññowing children to go to school. Explain
Lie! You explain. There are no negative countries.
>Can you point me to where this letter has data with "thousands of dead kids"? 😆
Right there in the summary! Sorry you're upset! 🤣
sysyphusishappy t1_izoakbs wrote
> They are known for their record keeping, after all.
Gee, that's odd. The New York Times doesn't mention "record keeping" at all to explain away the low death rates in Africa?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/health/covid-africa-deaths.html
> Lie! You explain. There are no negative countries.
Lol. Imagine being such a humorless authoritarian that you literally pretend obvious sarcasm is really a statement of fact.
Still not seeing any data at all to support your claim of "thousands of dead kids" as a result of allowing them to go to school and not be forced to mask...
Hey, maybe because there is no data to back up your government talking point? Just a hunch. Surely you'll find the data any minute now.
> Right there in the summary
What "summary"? You posted letters to the editor.
[deleted] t1_izob58p wrote
Another 3 second Google search: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/
Let's also forget the network effects of having kids spread it.
Aight, I'm out. You're an insufferable POS who just doesn't care about anything but themselves. Makes sense given your background.
sysyphusishappy t1_izobxig wrote
Oh.
> Among the 4.1 million COVID-19 deaths1 reported in the MPIDR COVerAGE database, 0.4 per cent (over 16,100) occurred in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. Of the over 16,100 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9.
You do realize this 16,000 number is for the entire world right? Out of 8 billion people? Btw did they die from COVID or with COVID?
Still not seeing any data at all to show "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden or florida.
You're doing just great! I feel like one more 30 second Google search and you'll find the smoking gun data that shows thousands of dead kids in Sweden and Florida for not obeying your vicious authoritarian policies.
[deleted] t1_izoczdx wrote
Here it is for the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
>You're doing just great! I feel like one more 30 second Google search and you'll find the smoking gun data that shows thousands of dead kids in Sweden and Florida for not obeying your vicious authoritarian policies.
Omg, maybe I'll find the conservative research that shows it's just a flu and nothing to worry about! Such a tool. Just keep ignoring other people's deaths because you're too much of a "man" to adhere to public health measures.
sysyphusishappy t1_izoe8fj wrote
Here what is? Less than 1500 kids total in a country of 330 million proves that there were "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden because they let kids go to school?
Btw did they die from COVID or with COVID? Even Hochul admits that's important now.
> Omg, maybe I'll find the conservative research that shows it's just a flu and nothing to worry about!
You made a specific claim that your vicious authoritarianism was the only thing that saved us from "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden, so you posted data that shows less than 1500 dead kids who you don't even know if they died from covid or with COVID to prove it?
> Just keep ignoring other people's deaths because you're too much of a "man" to adhere to public health measures.
I'm not ignoring anything. I am calling out your lies you used to support authoritarianism. Btw you do realize calling your authoritarianism "public health measures" doesn't make them less authoritarian right?
[deleted] t1_izoetbk wrote
You know calling it "freedom" doesn't make it less authoritarian to promote eugenics, right?
sysyphusishappy t1_izofare wrote
To summarize, you claimed not following your vicious authoritarianism would lead to "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden and Florida. You still have ZERO data to back that claim up, so now you're just blurting out bad things like eugenics that have literally nothing to do with anything we're talking about let alone even come close to backing up your dumb claim?
🤣
But yeah, putting "freedom" in scare quotes is not authoritarian at all.
[deleted] t1_izog84t wrote
I gave you stats that thousands of kids are dead, and millions of adults as well, given our lackadaisical attitude to pandemic control. You're here promoting letting people die and bashing "vicious authoritarian measures" like wearing a mask and not going out when you're sick.
I guess you're just a bastard 🤷♂️.
sysyphusishappy t1_izojq7s wrote
> I gave you stats that thousands of kids are dead
🤣🤣🤣🤣
But that's not what you claimed. You claimed thousands of kids died on Sweden and Europe since they chose to disobey your authoritarianism. Can you explain to me how showing data that 16,000 kids under 20 died globally out of 8 billion people even comed close to proving this claim?
Btw did you ever get around to showing which kids died from covid vs with COVID? Even your fascist heros like fauci and Hochul admitted that there is a vast difference between kids hospitalized for COVID vs just with COVID.
> You're here promoting letting people die and bashing "vicious authoritarian measures" like wearing a mask and not going out when you're sick.
But where are the "thousands of dead kids" you claimed resulted from Sweden, Europe and Florida not implementing your authoritarian policies?
You going to admit that you were wrong about that?
So tell.me how many more kids died in Sweden, Florida, and europe because they opened schools. You claimed "thousands of dead kids". So where is your data?
[deleted] t1_izok457 wrote
[removed]
MarbleFox_ t1_izogsqp wrote
> AUtHORITArIAnIsM!!1!!1!1!
Screams the one suggesting we should’ve forced children to go to school during the deadliest pandemic in US history.
sysyphusishappy t1_izoidzg wrote
Oh. So Sweden, Florida, and most of Europe "forced children to go to school" and they were fine. How can that be if your authoritarianism worked so well?
Btw you never did find that data that showed "thousands of dead kids" in Sweden huh? You ever think that your government talking points are outdated and wrong?
Maybe you should look at the actual science to find out what the IFR is for children and COVID.
Btw you do realize that safety is the excuse that pretty much every authoritarian leader in history used right?
Or are you arguing that lockdowns, arresting people for walking in the park, demanding to see papers to eat in a restaurant, banning parties and funerals, the government deciding which workers are "essential", forcing people to take big pharma products or risk getting fired, were not authoritarian?
[deleted] t1_iznz7pp wrote
Probably has more to do with living in a country ruled by conservative idiots who think going back to the dark ages is a great idea, lol.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo278m wrote
Show me the opinion polls that show this is a real thing. Every poll shows the economy, inflation, and crime as the most important concerns for voters. The left's authoritarian response to covid made all three much, much, much worse.
I would love for you to explain why the spikes in children's depression anxiety and suicidality are caused by the supreme court overturning Roe.
[deleted] t1_izo5f35 wrote
>The left's authoritarian response to covid made all three much, much, much worse
Uh, no. Trump demolishing the economy with a trade war and openly flaunting his lawlessness did that. Duh!
>I would love for you to explain why the spikes in children's depression anxiety and suicidality are caused by the supreme court overturning Roe.
Sure: nobody wants to return to the dark ages.
FrankFriendo t1_izlvqo7 wrote
Hahahahahahahahahaha you’re pathetic.
[deleted] t1_izo0qll wrote
[removed]
FrankFriendo t1_izo3i7f wrote
Hahaha your brain has been broken by partisan politics and a pandemic where your source of news took your mark-ass for a ride. You’re grifter bait.
[deleted] t1_izo4057 wrote
[removed]
FrankFriendo t1_izoavgz wrote
Lockdowns? You don’t know shit about actual lockdowns, you baby.
So the pandemic wasn’t real or you were just scared to wear a mask? I don’t get it with crybabies like you. How would you solve a pandemic? What countries did it right or did every country “go fascist” by trying to keep their most vulnerable alive?
When actual fascism experts weigh in on what sort of fascism is on the rise, you say nothing. Doesn’t agree with you politically. So you’ll pervert the word “fascist” to make up for the fact that, during a global pandemic, you handled it in the most selfish, pissbaby way and now you gotta try and act like a man. Weak coward.
[deleted] t1_izod806 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izoff1q wrote
>Haha yeah, the government wasn't literally welding people into their homes so authoritarianism was no big deal and totally didn't destroy the economy!
Lie.
>Can you explain to me how letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "saved lives"?
By reducing transmission rate. Go take a class in epidemiology.
>Lol at "the experts".
Do you're "the experts" then? Leave it to the professionals ya douche.
[deleted] t1_izok3ur wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izokdlw wrote
>Can you explain to me how letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "reduces transmission rates"? Would condoms that let through 90% of HIV particles reduce HIV infections?
Not worth my time. Go take that class I told you to. Condoms also are not 100%, btw.
>I cited a peer reviewed study from a physics journal that proves cloth and surgical masks do almost nothing. You have cited nothing but screaming government talking points like the good little fascist you are.
You cited a study showing they reduce the transmission rate. Ironic that you'd call me a fascist.
sysyphusishappy t1_izolnqx wrote
> Condoms also are not 100%, btw.
🤣 Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks are? Or are they closer to 99% effective?
> You cited a study showing they reduce the transmission rate. Ironic that you'd call me a fascist.
Uh, what? Can you not read? The data from that study showed they let through 90% of COVID aerosols. Can you explain how that "reduces transmission rate"?
Please tell me how a condom that let through 90% of HIV would "reduce the transmission rate" of HIV.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
[deleted] t1_izomeci wrote
>🤣 Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks are? Or are they closer to 99% effective?
Ah, so you're advocating for lockdowns? We did that too :).
>Uh, what? Can you not read?
Can you not? 10% reduction in aerosols reduces transmission rates dramatically. Compound interest and all that.
>Please tell me how a condom that let through 90% of HIV would "reduce the transmission rate" of HIV.
Sure: it would reduce the amount of HIV particles being spread by 10%. Make sense?
sysyphusishappy t1_izoq1d9 wrote
> Ah, so you're advocating for lockdowns? We did that too :).
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So you're admitting that cloth masks that let through 90% of COVID aerosols DO NOT "reduce transmission" like you just claimed? Now you're arguing for even more authoritarian lockdowns since you've admitted cloth masks do nothing?
Why don't you answer my question. Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks or closer to 99% effective?
If condoms were 10% effective like cloth masks, would they "reduce transmission" of HIV or nah?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
> Can you not? 10% reduction in aerosols reduces transmission rates dramatically. Compound interest and all that.
Lol. How would that even work theoretically? Would condoms that let through 90% of HIV particles "reduce transmission rates dramatically" for HIV?
How on earth does "compound interest" not work the other way here? As in if you"re indoors for half an hour letting through 90% of COVID aerosols what happens to the transmission rate? Does it stay the same?
> Sure: it would reduce the amount of HIV particles being spread by 10%. Make sense?
But you only need a few particles to get infected and the likelihood of becoming infected increases dramatically over time. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What do you think the odds of HIV infection are after using a 10% effective condom for 10 minutes? Is it 90% or 100%?
[deleted] t1_izoqu99 wrote
>So you're admitting that cloth masks that let through 90% of COVID aerosols DO NOT "reduce transmission"
They reduce the aerosols by 10%, which has a compounding effect. If you want 100% you should lock down. What's so hard to understand?
>Why don't you answer my question. Are condoms 10% effective like cloth masks or closer to 99% effective?
Closer to 87% in real life. How is it that those 13% don't lead to a global HIV pandemic? Hint: other layers of protection.
This is epidemiology 101. You should take it.
>How on earth does "compound interest" not work the other way here?
Because when you're going from 100% to 90% and compounding, the latter number is much less over time. Take a math class.
>But you only need a few particles to get infected and the likelihood of becoming infected increases dramatically over time. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>What do you think the odds of HIV infection are after using a 10% effective condom for 10 minutes? Is it 90% or 100%.
So per your example a 99% condom also wouldn't help. Lol.
sysyphusishappy t1_izourrv wrote
> They reduce the aerosols by 10%, which has a compounding effect. If you want 100% you should lock down. What's so hard to understand?
How does this "compounding effect" work exactly? Say you are in a crowded room wesring a mask for half an hour. How does letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "compound" over that half an hour?
> Closer to 87% in real life. How is it that those 13% don't lead to a global HIV pandemic? Hint: other layers of protection.
🤣🤣
So 87% effective is the same level of protection as 10% effective? Letting through 13% is just like letting through 90%? If condoms were 10% effective then we sure as fuck would have a global HIV pandemic. But they're not are they? They are 87% effective.
> Hint: other layers of protection.
I see. So cloth masks do almost nothing so we need even more authoritarian responses?
> Because when you're going from 100% to 90% and compounding, the latter number is much less over time. Take a math class.
🤣🤣
Explain to me how this "compounding effect" works over 10 minutes wearing a 10% effective condom. What do you think your odds of infection are after ten minutes?
> So per your example a 99% condom also wouldn't help. Lol.
🤣🤣
So to be clear, you think 10% effectiveness and 99% effectiveness are the same thing?
[deleted] t1_izov8me wrote
>How does this "compounding effect" work exactly? Say you are in a crowded room wesring a mask for half an hour. How does letting through 90% of COVID aerosols "compound" over that half an hour?
Say it let through 100%. Would people not have a higher chance of contracting the virus if one person among the group was sick?
Go enroll in epidemiology 101. It's not my job to fix your bad education. I'm just posting here so the other readers know what a fascist (or just stupid?) POS you are.
sysyphusishappy t1_izow9k4 wrote
> Say it let through 100%. Would people not have a higher chance of contracting the virus if one person among the group was sick?
?
What point did you think you were making here? They let though 90% as peer reviewed data from a physics journal proves. How does the 10% they block."compound" over time while the 90% they let through doesn't compound?
> Go enroll in epidemiology 101. It's not my job to fix your bad education.
You had to learn from me that your government talking points were wrong and cloth masks let through 90% of COVID aerosols, so not sure how you think I'm the one with the bad education here.
Or maybe the thing you wish happened compounds over time while the thing you wish didn't happen magically does not compound over time.
You're doing just great! I am sure the government will be giving you a medal any day now for denying the laws of physics to protect the integrity of their authoritarian policies.
🤣
[deleted] t1_izox0si wrote
Answer my question. Do you think a mask that lets through 100% of particles spreads a disease more or less than one that does 90%?
Yes, as people infect each other, that population of sick people compounds over time.
You're really not doing that well at this point. Let me help you out: https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=epidemiology
sysyphusishappy t1_izoxqnh wrote
> Answer my question. Do you think a mask that lets through 100% of particles spreads a disease more or less than one that does 90%?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Is this a joke? What happens with your "compounding effect" after a half hour in a crowded room wearing a mask that lets through 90% of COVID aerosols? What do you think happens to the odds of infecting someone else over that time period? Does it stay at 90% or does or go up?
Is a 90% risk of infecting others "effective"?
> Yes, as people infect each other, that population of sick people compounds over time.
I see. So what, you think masks led to a 10% reduction in infections?
[deleted] t1_izoyl4j wrote
>🤣🤣🤣🤣
>Is this a joke? What happens with your "compounding effect" after a half hour in a crowded room wearing a mask that lets through 90% of COVID aerosols? What do you think happens to the odds of infecting someone else over that time period? Does it stay at 90% or does or go up?
>Is a 90% risk of infecting others "effective"?
So basically you can't answer, lol.
>I see. So what, you think masks led to a 10% reduction in infections?
More than 10%. Don't forget the compounding effect over time. Ah wait, you don't understand any of this further than "this media blocks X% of particles" 😂
sysyphusishappy t1_izozltm wrote
> More than 10%. Don't forget the compounding effect over time. Ah wait, you don't understand any of this further than "this media blocks X% of particles" 😂
This is highly amusing. So the thing you want to happen compounds over time but the thing you don't want to happen doesn't compound over time.
[deleted] t1_izp1p8e wrote
>This is highly amusing. So the thing you want to happen compounds over time but the thing you don't want to happen doesn't compound over time.
The thing I don't want compounds less if you block it. This can't be made any more simple. You're trying to pull some kind of "gotcha" but you're not smart enough to do it.
Either those masks block some particles or they don't. If they block any, that has a compounding effect over time vs if you just let the disease spread unimpeded. The more blocking, the better.
Go take the course. You've already been schooled enough on here.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp2jfo wrote
> The thing I don't want compounds less if you block it. This can't be made any more simple. You're trying to pull some kind of "gotcha" but you're not smart enough to do it.
Huh?! 🤣
It "compounds less" but it still compounds and since we are STARTING at 90% what does it compound to?
I'll ask you for a third time. What happens to your risk of spreading COVID after a half hour in a room wearing a mask that lets through 90% of COVID aerosols? Does it go up, go down, or stay the same at 90% risk?
[deleted] t1_izp3nx8 wrote
>It "compounds less" but it still compounds and since we are STARTING at 90% what does it compound to?
Take out a calculator and multiply 1.9^100. Now do 2^100.
See the difference? That's why you should take epidemiology 101.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp429d wrote
🤣 Why can't you answer my question? We start at 90%. What does it compound to over half an hour?
[deleted] t1_izp4fbs wrote
I've answered your question. You are just refusing to recognize reality at this point. Pandemics are created due to unchecked transmission of a contagious disease.
sysyphusishappy t1_izp9crk wrote
No you didn't. We start at 90% risk of infection. What does it compound to in half an hour?
[deleted] t1_izpa6gq wrote
Yes, I did. Go reread my posts and do the math yourself. Your little contrived example isn't how this works. Pandemics occur over large geographic areas in the span of months and years. Much of the transmission is in passing and not in small rooms where people are sitting together for a long time -- that's what the lockdowns/social distancing target. Duh.
sysyphusishappy t1_izqfbu7 wrote
> Much of the transmission is in passing and not in small rooms where people are sitting together for a long time
Any evidence for this? Also, the idea that letting through 90% of COVID aerosols magically stops the spread despite the laws of physics is pretty amusing.
[deleted] t1_izqiskx wrote
It's amusing that you think letting through 100% has the same effect as letting through 90%. You don't seem that great at physics, tbh.
[deleted] t1_izoitei wrote
[removed]
spursfan34 t1_iznokye wrote
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You really typed this out?
sysyphusishappy t1_iznydcv wrote
The fact that lockdowns hurt people's mental health is the dumbest thing you ever read?
[deleted] t1_iznzfzi wrote
"fact"
You sure it wasn't the pandemic itself?
Or the conservative idiots showing their fascist tendencies and shattering the American dream?
sysyphusishappy t1_izo2u5r wrote
Yes fact. The unemployment rate in Florida is half of what it is in New York.
> Or the conservative idiots showing their fascist tendencies and shattering the American dream?
Hey, you think the government padlocking playgrounds in hasidic neighborhoods, locking people down, deciding what constitutes a "meal" that allowed us to sit at a bar, forcing children to eat on the cold ground and not speak, or deciding which workers are "essential" is fascist or nah? How about the government forcing people to take big pharma products they don't want or risk getting fired? Liberal or fascist?
How about printing and spending trillions during the pandemic and shutting downs schools and businesses in the largest economy on earth? You think the inflation that caused might have hurt the American dream?
[deleted] t1_izo5s0b wrote
>Yes fact.
Wrong again! It's conservative lawlessness and dark age mentality that is depressing the youth.
>Hey, you think the government padlocking playgrounds in hasidic neighborhoods, locking people down, deciding what constitutes a "meal" that allowed us to sit at a bar, forcing children to eat on the cold ground and not speak, or deciding which workers are "essential" is fascist or nah? How about the government forcing people to take big pharma products they don't want or risk getting fired? Liberal or fascist?
>How about printing and spending trillions during the pandemic and shutting downs schools and businesses in the largest economy on earth? You think the inflation that caused might have hurt the American dream?
I think it's mostly the bald-faced lying and dark age mentality from conservatives. Nobody wants to be a serf and bow down to an orange king! Sorry Mr chucklehead!
sysyphusishappy t1_izo6ovj wrote
> Wrong again! It's conservative lawlessness and dark age mentality that is depressing the youth.
Is this a joke? Any opinion polls or any data at all that reflect this insane statement? That locking children down, closing their playgrounds and schools, forcing them to stare at screens all day and in many cases forcing them to stay home with their abusers, had no effect at all and children are really suicidal over Roe being overturned?
[deleted] t1_izo6z32 wrote
Yes. Go do a Google search. Or y'know, go outside and talk to some real people.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo74eu wrote
Oh. So you think making insane vague statements and then just telling people to "look it up!" is an effective debating tactic?
[deleted] t1_izo7kgs wrote
Seems to be working for you, lol. I'm just stating the truth and putting a similar amount of effort into the posts as not to waste my own time.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo8al7 wrote
Can you provide just one source or any data points at all to prove that Roe is responsible for the spike in children's mental health problems?
[deleted] t1_izo8z7m wrote
I've provided just as many sources and data points as you have, buddy. Do your own research!
[deleted] t1_iznm3bw wrote
Nah it's probably seeing that republicans are completely unhinged and pushing for a theocratic/fascist state while looking the other way whenever they break their own rules that is making people ngaf any more.
sysyphusishappy t1_iznyjjd wrote
> Nah it's probably seeing that republicans are completely unhinged and pushing for a theocratic/fascist state
That's funny. I've never seen opinion polls that day the majority of people are scared of the US becoming "a theocratic fascist state". Most people are concerned about the economy and crime.
[deleted] t1_iznyvfm wrote
Christofascism is terrible for the economy and excuses the crimes of its leaders. Thanks for confirming my point ya dope 👍.
sysyphusishappy t1_izo3hj6 wrote
First of all, what in the fuck is "christofascism" and how is it "terrible for the economy"? You think that maybe shutting down the largest economy on earth by copying an actual fascist regime and printing and spending trillions of dollars was maybe worse for the economy than "christofascism"? Whatever that means?
[deleted] t1_izo5vyp wrote
Look it up if you're so poorly educated! The fact that you are is a result of their policies and is dragging the economy down!
sysyphusishappy t1_izo6gv6 wrote
Lol. Make an insane conspiratorial claim and then just blurt out "look it up" when challenged. You're doing just great!
[deleted] t1_izo6tgn wrote
Projection at its finest. You're doing just great!
sysyphusishappy t1_izo83zt wrote
I see. So claiming, without evidence, that it's really "christofascism" and not shutting down a $23 trillion economy and printing and spending trillions more to cover up for it, is what really destroyed the economy is what exactly? Fact based?
Can you provide me just one data point or source for this claim or are you still just blurting out "look it up!!"?
[deleted] t1_izo8v55 wrote
>Can you provide me just one data point or source for this claim
Can you? All I've heard from you are conservative talking points and deflections whenever you're shown to be wrong. Gish gallop baby!
>So claiming, without evidence
Projection at its finest. QED.
tinydancer_inurhand t1_izpbq7s wrote
First time I’ve seen the top comment have negative karma but post still has 100+ comments lol
sysyphusishappy t1_izqdbxo wrote
This sub screamed for the authoritarian policies that we are now paying for with a mental health crisis, a crime crisis, and an economic crisis. None likes to be reminded of just how destructive the policies they cheered ok were in reality. They sat in their pajamas on zoom calls screaming for more lockdowns, more mandates and more school closures.
[deleted] t1_izl7m37 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izl677d wrote
[removed]