wolf.sbs
I’ll be less obnoxious on this one, I promise.
https://tilde.club/~wolf
1,351 posts
87 followers
63 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Of course they do. How could they not? You presumably read the meta-analysis of studies on their proliferation of MPs and NPs in the environment—do you think that only happens when they’re not on your face filtering the air you inhale?
comment in response to
post
And to be clear, I was responding to a post that was advocating that participants at a protest mask up before attending. The discussion about the “chronically ill” (I’m assuming your clumsy gesture at the immunocompromised?) was a moving of the goal posts.
comment in response to
post
It’s also not aligned with the evidenced-based practice guidelines of the CDC and medicine as it’s practiced in the US today. Hospitals don’t even require staff nor guests to mask during flu season anymore.
comment in response to
post
It is _insanely_ disingenuous to acknowledge the profound environmental harm caused by masks _in particular_ on the health of humans and hand wave it away because of a disease that is now as dangerous as the flu, even if it were true that “hardly anyone uses masks anymore.” (To your lament?)
comment in response to
post
Only N95 respirators are effective at reducing transmission of COVID, and one needs to be fit and tested on each individual who wears them in order for them to be efficacious. Nobody outside of the field of healthcare actually does this.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
You’re not a very careful reader.
comment in response to
post
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
I don’t think any has ever claimed they spread them, but cool. Show them.
comment in response to
post
No, you cannot easily spread disease outside because of the circulation of air. That's why we have flu seasons to begin with: people are inside more often during the winter. Transmission of airborne diseases outdoors hasn't even technically been recorded in medical science, I don't think.
comment in response to
post
I'm pretty well satisfied that I made my point, though: in the absence of a pandemic of a virulent strain of a dangerous disease, overusing masks becomes the more pertinent danger.
comment in response to
post
Burden of proof is on you when you quote-dunk, I don't really care if you adequately explain yourself or not.
comment in response to
post
It really isn't, though. COVID-19 now is _endemic_, like influenza, so this is like saying that the Spanish Flu is still a pandemic because there are still outbreaks of H1N1.
comment in response to
post
Right: I can't figure out which image you're referencing, so I don't know what that is in reference to or are trying to say.
I already very easily gave you the data you asked for, because it's very easily referenceable on the CDC website. It's tedious to screenshot such public data, though I can.
comment in response to
post
I'm also not assuming anything about the numbers; those are easily referenceable on the CDC website. Note, though, that "unmitigated" spread today is lower than it was during the actual pandemic, which indicts the argument that mask mandates would be beneficial today.
comment in response to
post
I have no idea what "+/- 2%" references or means, nor do I know anything about your health history. In general, though, your own personal decisions have no bearing on whether or not others are allowed to make similar decisions regarding their own health.
comment in response to
post
Tell me: by what grossly utilitarian calculus are we determining that the needs of these patients are subordinate to the needs of others? These senselessly totalizing diktats are in no way what is best for all patients at large.
comment in response to
post
The chronically ill who suffer from asthma frequently cannot tolerate masks for long periods of time and suffer more frequent bronchospasms triggered by the inhalation of microplastics, which means more emergency hospital trips and more time spent in hospital in general, for example.
comment in response to
post
Except the rates are down too 😬 and I have a perfectly keen awareness of the needs of chronically ill people and the diversity of those needs, which you're essentializing senselessly for polemical reasons in spite of the fact that long term mask use is contraindicated for many people as well.
comment in response to
post
Anyway, this is literally result number one from Google. Let me know if you'd like the PDF. www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
comment in response to
post
Yeah, that's why they distort and fabricate data. Lol. I suppose you're an ardent supporter of UHC and the like?
comment in response to
post
Oh, you're talking about how airborne transmission of disease works? LOL, you'd have to go about a century into the science for that data, I think.
comment in response to
post
cdc.gov
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
1. Complying with what? 2. I'm using scientific data collected on death rates to make an argument that the risks of overusing masks far outweigh the benefits, which includes not only a reduction of excess deaths but also induction of long COVID, which 3. you are asserting is false without any basis.
comment in response to
post
Respirators _are_ the microplastics, obviously. And I have checked the excess deaths, obviously, why would I say that had I not? The CDC keeps track of that data, not insurance companies.
comment in response to
post
Wearing a mask outside actually increases the risk of transmission slightly if you come into contact with someone infected, because you're now aerosolizing those virions on the surface of your contaminated mask (which you're supposed to be changing regularly).
comment in response to
post
It is _very_ uncommon. Most transmission occurs if one is within six feet of an infected person for a period of 15 minutes or more inside of a building.
comment in response to
post
Except people aren't getting that sick anymore. Those are just the numbers. Instead, they're just continuing to consume and dispose of masks needlessly into landfills and oceans while the companies that produce them continue to rake in a fortune.
comment in response to
post
There absolutely is none. Politicians are meant to represent our interests and are responsible for creating platforms which demonstrate that they do. That these politicians instead threaten us if we don’t give them our vote indicates that democracy has well departed and that we are in a crisis.
comment in response to
post
Lucky them: they already are.
comment in response to
post
The protests are also outside.
comment in response to
post
Fascists would not be dangerous at all, were it not for the liberals who create the environment in which they can act against a defanged populace unopposed.
Bear in mind, though, that fascism is a strategy, not an ideology, which makes the two incomparable and often enough concomitant.
comment in response to
post
The darker it is the higher in your GI tract, meaning your stomach upset might be the result of a bleed in your stomach. Not nagging you or telling you what to do, just letting you know.
comment in response to
post
There is a massive difference between armed forces that target enemy combatants and those that reign wanton destruction on all forms of human life and society, and the conflation of the two is often used to vilify self-defense from the latter by the former.
comment in response to
post
This is why reducing and compartmentalizing “state violence” as though it were distinguishable from other forms of coercion (economic, penal, etc.) in this regard is mystifying and misleading.
comment in response to
post
The only manner by which any state ever enacts force is either through the use of physical violence/harm or the threat of it. That’s why individual acts of war necessarily must be litigated to either be criminal or lawful.
comment in response to
post
Corporations aren’t monarchies; CEOs in themselves are hardly powerful enough for this to constitute any such thing
as a regicide. The notion that UHC chose to respond by giving into the supposed demands instead of merely hiring a better security detail for their C-suite executives is dubious.
comment in response to
post
I frankly think it’s most probable that he was murdered in broad daylight by those of his own class for entirely different reasons unknown to us, and that such spectacle is being opportunistically utilized to bait other idealistic naïfs into similarly sacrificing themselves for nothing.
comment in response to
post
I’m making the case that it’s actively more harmful to advocate taking extremely costly measures in the hopes of achieving such paltry gains. That is objectively worse than doing nothing from a simple cost-benefit analysis.
comment in response to
post
Nah. Everyone involved in the enclosure and privatization of the health and wellbeing of the people in this country for the sake of profit are ripe for the wall. I have no idea how you can rationalize such a staunch opposition to murder on our behalf while they quite literally are murdering us.
comment in response to
post
Of course we have the power to. What we lack is the organization and political sophistication of a party that could achieve such an end.
comment in response to
post
If, hypothetically, murdering CEOs made private health insurance companies more efficient, is that really an adequate trade-off for sacrificing the liberty and lives of radical and brave people? Shouldn’t something more distant from the status quo be sought instead?
comment in response to
post
This news item is obviously fake, anyway. It’s not as though people in psychosis ever stopped having hallucinations involving telephones or radios—all this news item actually does is make the utterly mundane observation that ChatGPT has permeated the world and become a commonplace technology.