Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_izp8x1p wrote

−1

[deleted] t1_izp97g6 wrote

You're getting pretty desperate here ignoring the laws of physics as they apply to epidemiology, lol.

4

sysyphusishappy t1_izp9gbx wrote

I don't... Which peer reviewed physics journal did you cite data from?

0

[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.

5

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?

−1

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.

5

[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".

4

sysyphusishappy t1_izqb9ah wrote

> And that 10% compounds in a rapidly spreading virus.

Lol but the 90% doesn't compound because reasons. Got it.

0

[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.

1

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.

5

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"?

−2

FrankFriendo t1_izqgjm5 wrote

Ehhhhhhh. I think you’re beyond help.

5

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".

−2

[deleted] t1_izqk0g4 wrote

The issue is that you just don't understand physics or how it relates to epidemiology very well.

6

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!

3

[deleted] t1_izqfkz0 wrote

[removed]

−2

[deleted] t1_izqkd6w wrote

That cherry picked fact doesn't prove that. The study you're citing even says as much, dumbass.

3