BTW if you want to try pysiological sighs, the specific breathwork that was used in this study but have a deviated septum or other issues breathing through your nose, one of the study's authors Andrew Huberman has said that you can do it just as easily through your mouth as long as you do a double inhale and a longer or more forceful exhale.

https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration

Right because anyone who understands that the laws of physics are immutable and that "public health" is a psuedoscience is "being help".

> 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.

Oh. Can you explain how this "public health" paper defies the laws of physics to make 10% effective masks "decrease the spread"?

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?

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.

Oh. So the squad are not leftists?

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?

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

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

> 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?

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

No you didn't. We start at 90% risk of infection. What does it compound to in half an hour?

🤣 Why can't you answer my question? We start at 90%. What does it compound to over half an hour?

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

🤣

> 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?

> 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? 🤣🤣🤣

> 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%?

> 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.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

> 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?

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?