WTH? CDC Admits “At No Time Has CDC Guidance Suggested that Masks Were Intended to Protect the Weare

I'm so disenchanted w/ the CDC & the WHO especially, in their handling of this Chinese scourge... Furthermore, it's unconscionable for Biden, Harris, MSM et al. to be personally laying the notion of murder of 210,000 citizens at Trump's feet. The whole notion of this is so objectionable & I trust that even the 'low information' voters among us can sniff this one out.

Lots about this unprecedented - perpetrated scourge that we are all still learning about...




https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ggested-masks-intended-protect-wearers-video/

 

It's primarily intended to protect others. When you wear a mask, it is primarily to protect others, not you, though if both people are wearing masks, that helps protect you too. They've been saying that for a long time now. This isn't new.

 

The OP is letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Masks are primarily for keeping the wearer from spreading disease to others ... might be why doctors wear masks when they perform surgery. It ain't rocket science, folks.

 

For me the epidemiological community has lost its credibility. Too bad.

 

How?

 

I don't believe what they say any longer. How else?

 

I guess reality show stars are better sources than those examining the actual evidence available.

 

I don't think so. Why do you?

 

Nah, I go with the evidence. Epidemiologists do a good job of that. Unlike Trump and his lackies.

 

I don't think either group does a good job.

 

As is the case with the FBI and other agencies, most of the rank and file are good men and women with good intentions doing honest work.

It's the bad apples in leadership that spoil the good work done.

 

Paging @CenterField , perhaps you can share your metastudy with the CDC?

 

I don't have the disease, so, in your admission, I shouldn't have to wear a mask, right? Oh but wait, they (assertion absent fact repeated a zillion times on this board) do protect me. Except they don't. And this exercise in compliance has been just that. And the folks who have succumb to the disease even though they were regular mask wearers means that all the BS hype MSM and folks like Cruella Pelosi and Creepy Joe and all contributed was all for naught. And now we know, and yet, our esteemed lefty colleagues are still trying to backsplain just how those of us who have consistently pointed this out are still wrong, even though we have consistently said what folks, like the above are now finally admitting to.

 

If you were being tested regularly, regardless of symptoms, with accurate testing, then yeah, you might have a point there. I doubt that is the case.

As for your false claims about these people consistently wearing masks, they've been disproven already and were disproven in the original study (which you haven't read). And no one has ever said that masks are 100% preventative. No one. Ever. Anywhere. They are ONE measure people should be taking.

 

Yes, the CDC is utterly and completely wrong on this, and for a reason (to protect the stock of masks so that healthcare workers would have them... which is utterly contradictory because if healthcare workers need them to work with ALREADY INFECTED patients, the protection is for the worker, not for the patient).

What's your point? Do you think the CDC is infallible? In the past the CDC used to be more reliable... now it bends according to politics.

You know how impressed I am at the argument that the CDC says otherwise? Not. At. All.

Try again.

 

Do you have a single prospective controlled study demonstrating decreased incidence of disease as a primary endpoint to share?

That would be a good first step in justifying your use of the word "protect".

 

Several studies have showed, in lab and in real-world environments, that masks slow the spread of the disease. Surely you know this. If not, then learning this fact would be a good "first step" in understanding this topic.

 

Oh goody.
Should be easy for you to generate that study,
Prospective, controlled, incidence of disease as a primary endpoint, the way real science works.
1,2,3 go!

 

See previous post. You're attempting to try to play a shell game in order to ignore the actual research out there.

 

It's a very simple exercise.
Show the study

 

So, once you've had the disease, you shouldn't ever have to wear a mask again, right? Make the case that demands that those folks, like the President at this point, should ever have to wear one again. There are plenty of evidence out there that mast wearing folks (my personal experience with family members for 1) that have documented this. Why would you possibly call that our as a "false claim"? Read the CDC literature itself. They have the same data the rest of us have, and it's just as easy for you to research this as not. So, in your estimation, I am healthy, I shouldn't need to wear a mask because there aren't folks I need to be protected from. Got it.

 

it depends on the mask.

medical masks protect others.

N95 masks protect the wearer.

 

See previous post.

 

The one where you produced no prospective, controlled study demonstrating reduced incidence of disease as a primary endpoint?
That post?

 

Depends on if people can be re-infected or not, which we still don't know. As for my "estimation," please read previous post. Or the CDC literature you claim to have read.